get_widget_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns schema details (defaults, meta properties, etc.) and is implicitly a read operation. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are apparent, making it transparent for a schema retrieval tool.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, contents, and usage. It uses a dash to list contents and avoids unnecessary detail, earning its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the return value, optional drill-down, and how to use results. It could mention that widget_type is the type of widget to query, but overall it suffices.

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 explains property_name's role for drilling down but does not describe widget_type, which is required. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has no descriptions), but the lack of explanation for widget_type leaves a gap.

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 clearly states it returns the full property schema for a widget, listing specific contents such as defaults, meta properties, and configurable properties. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_widget and update_widgets by focusing on schema introspection and explicitly mentioning use with update_widget.

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 provides usage guidance by instructing to use property_name for drilling into a single property and to use the property names with update_widget. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_widget, though the context is clear.

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