List chat widgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination with a `has_more` flag, and a summary of the fields each item includes. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the return payload structure, without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action + pagination, definition of the resource, and what each item contains. No filler or repetition. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a rich output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the resource, pagination behavior, and the kind of data returned. The existing output schema handles return-value details, and the annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and constraints. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of pagination and item fields is peripheral to the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource combination: "Lists the chat widgets on the current site." It also clarifies what a chat widget is, distinguishing this tool from other list tools in the sibling set. The scope is explicit (current site, paginated), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 establishes clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need to see the chat widgets configured on the site. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that it implicitly separates itself from other list tools. A brief note about when not to use it or an alternative would push this to a 5.

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