get_widget

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

No annotations are present. The description only states 'get details', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., widget name, type, configuration). Missing information about error handling when widgetId is invalid or not found.

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 100% (the only parameter 'widgetId' is described as 'ID of the widget to get'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get details of a specific widget' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (widget). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_widgets' (list) and 'delete_widget' (delete). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools, relying on the widgetId parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_widgets' for browsing or other getters. The usage is implied but not explicit.

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