get_widget_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns data (column, order, config) without mentioning side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or destructiveness. For a read operation, this is minimally acceptable but incomplete—e.g., it does not confirm that the operation is non-destructive or requires certain permissions.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. It avoids unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but it effectively communicates the core purpose without verbosity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the primary functionality and filter options but lacks details on parameter defaults (e.g., limit default 20), pagination behavior, error cases, or what the returned data structure looks like. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for page_id and widget_id by stating 'Filter by page or widget,' and clarifies instance_id's role in list vs. detail mode. However, limit and offset remain undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving their purpose implicit. The description adds moderate value beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('widget instance placement'), and what it returns ('column, order, and config'). It also mentions filtering by page or widget, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_widget_bundle or analyze_widget_performance.

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 basic clue on usage ('Filter by page or widget') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools such as get_widget_bundle or analyze_widget_performance could serve different purposes, but no comparison is made. More guidance would improve clarity.

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