get_widgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation ('List widgets'), discloses that the response is reduced ('stripped to key fields'), and explains pagination behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema offers, though it does not cover output format or potential errors.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first tells the core purpose, the second packs pagination details. Every chunk of information is useful and front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: listing action, reduced payload, and pagination. It does not mention the optional type filter, but the schema documents it clearly. For an AI agent selecting the tool, this is sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the default limit and the pagination cursor, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it does not elevate beyond the baseline.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource construction: 'List widgets on a mural'. It also notes 'stripped to key fields', distinguishing it from get_widget (which likely returns full details). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 gives clear pagination context (default limit 50, use 'next' cursor), but does not explicitly name alternatives for when to use get_widget instead. The phrase 'stripped to key fields' implicitly suggests that get_widget is for full details, but the guidance is not explicit, so it falls into 'implied usage' rather than a clear when/when-not formulation.

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