Get widget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which conveys the read-only, side-effect-free safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the retrieval action, so it neither enhances nor contradicts the annotations.

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, terse sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention the shape of the returned widget info, error cases, or prerequisites like whether the widget must be installed. With no output schema, a bit more detail would be expected.

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 schema lists widget_code without any description (0% coverage), and the description merely repeats 'by its code' without explaining what a widget_code is, its format, or how to obtain it. This provides minimal added semantic value over the schema property name.

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 specifies a clear action ('Get'), resource ('widget info'), and lookup method ('by its code'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like kommo_widgets_list or install, so some sibling differentiation is missing.

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 versus alternatives such as kommo_widgets_list or install/uninstall. The phrase 'by its code' implies a prerequisite but fails to explain selection criteria or exclude cases.

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