mcp_get_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action, but fails to disclose read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if widget_id not found), or any side effects. Being a 'get' tool, read-only hint would be helpful but is absent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to include parameters or usage context without losing brevity.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return format, potential errors, or how to handle invalid IDs. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects it meets basic needs but has 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?

The input schema has 100% documentation coverage for the single parameter 'widget_id' with an example. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'Get a widget's details' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (widget), and distinguishes from siblings like mcp_add_widget (create) and mcp_delete_widget (delete).

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 vs alternatives such as mcp_list_widget_types or mcp_get_sidebar_widgets. The description does not mention that this is for retrieving a single widget by ID, nor does it warn about prerequisites.

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