guild_get_widget_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds further context: it explicitly returns `{enabled, channel_id}` and notes it is an admin view. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the exact data inspected, though it omits details like authentication requirements or potential errors, which are not critical given the 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?

The description is compact and well-organized with headers for purpose, usage, and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, return values, and differentiates from siblings, leaving no significant gaps.

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% (the only parameter `guild_id` is described as 'Guild to query'). The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 states the tool retrieves widget settings for a guild in an admin view, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `guild_get_widget` by explicitly mentioning the admin view, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including a direct reference to the alternative tool `guild_get_widget` for public data. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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