cigchat_flow_chat_button_widgets

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

The description discloses that the operation is a GET request (read-only) and requires a specific scope, which is helpful given the absence of annotations. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, default limits, or response format, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential details: purpose, HTTP method, and scope requirement. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 list operation with no output schema and complete parameter schemas, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the endpoint and authentication requirement, but could go slightly further by indicating the response is a collection. Overall, it provides adequate context for an agent to use the 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (code, page, limit) with descriptions, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond this, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get list of chat button widgets' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP method and path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigchat_list_tags and cigchat_list_shortcuts by focusing on the unique resource type.

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 a prerequisite by stating 'Requires the Manage Flow scope on the token', which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the purpose but not fully elaborated.

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