get_widget_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: big choice lists are omitted by default and can be inlined or paged via get_widget_choices. This is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the full return structure, any potential errors, or permissions required. For a read-only getter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. Three sentences cover purpose, format hints, and choice list handling without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to use it, key behavioral notes about choice lists, and explicit alternatives. The only minor gap is the widget identifier format, but this is compensated by the description's overall clarity and the presence of sibling tools like list_widgets.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain include_choices well ('pass include_choices=True to inline them') and notes the default behavior. However, it does not clarify the format or identifier for the widget parameter, leaving the most important parameter underspecified. An agent would still need to infer widget ID format from siblings or examples.

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 action ('Get the configurable options') and the resource ('for one widget'). It also explains the purpose (fill an element's options correctly) and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_widget_choices by mentioning alternatives for paging through choice lists, making it specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve configurable options for a single widget. It also explicitly names an alternative (get_widget_choices) for paging through large choice lists, and explains the include_choices parameter for inlining. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude usage relative to other siblings like list_widgets or probe_widget_data, so it falls short of a full 5.

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