dashboard_widget_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the payload contains widget type names, key field names, and layout rules; it does not clarify whether this is a static snapshot or live server config, nor how large the catalog is.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the content categories with no filler or redundancy. Every clause (widget types, field names, layout rules) carries information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of shape information, and it lists content categories without describing the structure of the returned catalog. It is adequate for a trivial no-arg lookup but leaves the agent guessing what the response looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning to explain. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing it as a fixed catalog lookup.

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?

States a specific resource — supported dashboard widget types, their key field names, and layout rules — so an agent knows exactly what reference data this returns. It does not name or contrast with the sibling manage_dashboard, so an agent must infer that this is the read-only lookup companion to that mutation tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference to consult before constructing a dashboard via manage_dashboard, but the description never says when to call it or when not to. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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