list_app_widgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('получить список'), but doesn't mention any behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the app_id doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential 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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the widget list returns, whether it's paginated, what fields are included, or any error conditions. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool usage.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'app_id' has a clear description in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already documented in the structured schema.

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 'Получить список виджетов приложения' clearly states the action ('получить список' - get list) and resource ('виджетов приложения' - app widgets), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_app_plugins' or 'list_app_themes', but the resource specificity is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related sibling tools like 'list_app_plugins' and 'list_app_themes' for similar listing operations, but no indication of when to choose widgets over plugins or themes, or any prerequisites for usage.

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