get_widget

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 reveal that returned data is 'stripped to key fields,' a useful non-obvious trait, but it does not discuss error handling, permissions, or invalid ID behavior, leaving gaps.

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 the core action front-loaded and no redundant wording. It earns its place with zero filler.

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 with no output schema, the description gives a partial return-shape hint but does not enumerate which key fields are included or what happens on failure. It also omits mention of the dual-ID requirement, making it minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 fully documents both required parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not mention parameters or clarify how muralId and widgetId relate, but the schema already handles that.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'single widget by ID,' clearly distinguishing it from the plural sibling get_widgets and the mutation delete_widget. The parenthetical '(stripped to key fields)' adds precise scoping of the response.

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 phrase 'single widget by ID' implies the tool is for retrieving one specific widget, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_widgets or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named, so usage context is only implied.

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