get_widget_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the kind of information returned and mentions dynamic Qt properties, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, failure behavior for unknown widgets, or prerequisites like a running app.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main operation front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds relevant information about the tool's purpose or output scope.

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?

The tool is simple and output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Still, the description omits usage boundaries relative to many sibling tools and does not mention that widget_id likely comes from find_widget or get_widget_tree, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among 21 tools.

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 description coverage is only 50%; pid is described but widget_id is not. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance and does not explain how to obtain or format widget_id, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get detailed properties and state of a specific widget.' It also enumerates content areas (geometry, text, enabled/visible state, dynamic Qt properties), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_widget_tree or find_widget.

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 phrase 'specific widget' implies this tool is for inspecting one widget after its ID is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. It does not direct the agent to find_widget for lookup or get_widget_tree for hierarchy.

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