wp_get_widget

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return content but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid ID, or any error conditions. The word 'Get' implies read-only but it is not explicit.

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, concise sentence that begins with the action verb 'Get' and lists the key deliverables without extraneous text.

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?

The description enumerates the returned data categories but lacks an output schema and does not specify error handling, permission requirements, or the structure of the returned data. It is sufficient for a simple getter but incomplete for robust agent use.

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 description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, and the schema provides no description for it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should at least indicate that the id identifies the widget to retrieve, but it does not.

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 tool retrieves a single widget and enumerates the pieces of information it provides (rendered output, raw instance, sidebar, and advertisement metadata). This distinguishes it from wp_list_widgets which lists widgets.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single widget by ID or contrast with listing operations.

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