vrm_get_custom_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('Get') but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, read-only guarantee, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could include a bit more context without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the input and action but does not describe the return value or configuration structure, which would help the agent understand what is retrieved.

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 100% (the single parameter is described as 'Installation/site ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating 'installation', missing opportunities like explaining how to obtain the siteId.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'custom widget configuration for an installation', distinguishing it from sibling tools like vrm_get_status_widget and vrm_get_widget_graph by specifying 'custom'. However, it does not elaborate on what a custom widget is, which could cause ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 39 sibling tools, including multiple widget-related tools, the absence of usage context or exclusions makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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