wetrack_list_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 does indicate a read-only list, user scoping, and ordering, but it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second summarizes the returned widget fields. There is no wasted text or redundant detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, scope, ordering, and the main fields. The only gap is a lack of explicit guidance linking this tool to related reporting and dashboard siblings, which is a minor omission given the simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers all input, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics beyond what the empty input schema shows.

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') and resource ('the current user's report widgets'), and clarifies display order and key fields. This distinguishes it from sibling widget-related tools like create_widget, update_widget, delete_widget, and get_widget_data.

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 it: when you need the current user's report widgets in display order. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as wetrack_get_dashboard or wetrack_get_reports, nor does it state when not to use it.

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