mcp_get_sidebar_widgets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not state this is a read-only operation, nor describe what data is returned (widget IDs, full objects, etc.). For a retrieval tool, behavioral traits are under-disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. However, given the missing behavior and usage details, a slightly longer description would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at returned data (e.g., list of widget objects/IDs). It does not. With no annotations and minimal description, completeness is insufficient for an agent to reliably use this tool.

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% for the single parameter 'sidebar_id', and the description in input schema ('Sidebar ID') is adequate. The tool description adds no further meaning, so baseline 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?

Description states 'Get all widgets in a sidebar' - clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'mcp_get_widget' (which gets a single widget) or list tools like 'mcp_list_widget_types'. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_get_widget', 'mcp_list_widget_types', or 'mcp_move_widget'. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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