List widgets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'settings and rendered output', which is a valuable behavioral detail beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('List widgets'), then the optional scope, then what is included. No wasted words; every phrase contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does by mentioning settings and rendered output. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a list tool this is a minor omission. Given the read-only annotations and straightforward parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: both `sidebar` and `site_id` have clear descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description mentions 'optionally within one sidebar', which aligns with the `sidebar` parameter but adds no new syntax or details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('widgets'), and adds the scoping option ('within one sidebar') as well as what is included ('settings and rendered output'). It clearly distinguishes this read tool from create/update/delete widget tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly communicates intent ('List widgets') and the optional sidebar filter, which is the main usage decision. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_widget/update_widget/delete_widget, but the read-only nature is evident from context and annotations. It could have explicitly stated 'use this for read, others for modify', but the tone and sibling names make it clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.