wetrack_get_widget_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (label/value pairs, up to 50 groups) and the chart-ready format, which is useful. While it does not explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, the query nature and absence of side-effects are reasonably transparent for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentences that immediately state the query, return format, and param source. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or irrelevant information.

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 single-parameter read-only widget with an output schema available, the description gives enough to call it confidently: what it does, what it returns, and where to obtain the parameter. Nothing missing to prevent an agent from invoking it successfully.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by defining widget_id as the ID from wetrack_list_widgets or wetrack_create_widget, giving the agent a concrete source for a meaningful value beyond the schema alone.

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?

States a clear specific action ('Run a widget s metric+dimension query') and return chart-ready data, with a concrete resource and output format. It is easily distinct from sibling widget tools like list/create/update/delete.

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 by instructing that widget_id should come from wetrack_list_widgets or wetrack_create_widget, which provides a clear retrieval context. It does not list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intent is clear and no competing alternative is apparent.

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