list_code_widgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully warns that the tool uses /v2-experimental endpoints that may change, but it does not declare read-only behavior, permission requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with large result sets.

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 two short sentences with the operation stated first and the experimental caveat second. It is appropriately sized, though it wastes the opportunity to use its brevity for more valuable parameter or usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape does not need explanation. However, for a three-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is not complete enough: it omits pagination semantics, board scoping, and any usage guidance aside from the experimental warning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It never explains board_id scoping, what limit means, or how cursor pagination works, leaving all three parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List code widget items"), which is enough to know it is a collection read. It does not distinguish this listing from the closely named siblings get_code_widget, create_code_widget, and update_code_widget, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code_widget or list_items. The only contextual note is the EXPERIMENTAL endpoint warning, which is a stability caveat rather than usage guidance.

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