List widgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying which widgets are included (public installed and private uploaded), but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or response characteristics, which would be useful given openWorldHint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential scope immediately and is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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 list tool with read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, but it omits any discussion of pagination or the filter parameter, leaving gaps for an agent that needs to understand all optional inputs and open-world behavior.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention 'page,' 'limit,' or 'filter_widget_code' at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The filter parameter especially lacks needed context about what a 'widget_code' is.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('widgets') and explicitly scopes the result to 'public widgets installed and private widgets uploaded by the user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_widgets_get, kommo_widgets_install, and kommo_widgets_uninstall.

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 implies when to use this tool (to list widgets) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. The scope and verb make the basic use case clear, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to related widget operations.

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