get_mural_widgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions pagination via limit and next_token, and explains type_filter for narrowing results, which are useful behavioral details. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, but the 'get' verb conveys this. Overall, it reveals key behaviors beyond the schema.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence and line adds value, with no waste or redundancy. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: it explains every parameter, mentions pagination and filtering, and lists allowed filter values. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed. The description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains every parameter, including mural_id, type_filter, parent_id, limit, and next_token. It even lists the allowed values for type_filter (areas, arrows, comments, files, sticky notes, texts, icons, images, shapes), providing complete semantic guidance.

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 states 'Get all widgets on a mural' with a specific verb (get), resource (widgets), and scope (on a mural). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mural and get_mural_widget, as it targets the collection of widgets rather than a single widget or the mural itself.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool ('Use type_filter to narrow results') and implies it is the bulk retrieval endpoint for all widgets in a mural. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use get_mural_widget instead, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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