get_dashboard_widgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which covers the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by confirming the resource is dashboard-scoped, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, ordering, or other runtime behavior. It does not contradict 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 short sentence with no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word adds clarity.

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 the low complexity of a one-parameter, read-only getter with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete for correct invocation. It could say whether the result is always a full list or describe return structure, but the missing detail is unlikely to block an agent from selecting and calling the tool correctly.

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 100%: dashboard_id is fully documented as 'Dashboard ID' and required. The description only restates the dashboard relationship, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('widgets'), and a scoping qualifier ('configured on a dashboard'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It distinguishes from get_dashboard and get_widget by indicating a dashboard-scoped list of widget objects, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools like get_widget or get_dashboard, and it mentions no exclusions or conditions. The intended use is only implied by the name and one-line description.

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