guild_get_widget

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

Annotations already declare the tool non-destructive, read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context with the no-auth note and the mention that it's a raw passthrough of the Discord API, giving the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.

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 extremely concise yet well-structured, using bold headings to separate purpose, usage, and return value. Every sentence adds relevant information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter GET tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage conditions, authentication requirements, and return fields. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (guild_id) with a pattern and description. The description doesn't add extra parameter-level semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the public guild widget JSON, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like guild_get_widget_settings and guild_get_widget_image_url by focusing on the raw JSON endpoint.

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 says when to use it (rendering a public widget on a website), notes a prerequisite (widget must be enabled), and references the relevant settings tool. It also clarifies that no bot auth is required, which helps the agent choose this over authenticated alternatives.

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