list_widgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid dashboardId), return format, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks important context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence of five words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is essential: it states the action, target, and filter. No unnecessary details or verbosity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimally so. It explains the basic operation but lacks details about the return value (list of widget objects), any ordering, or error behavior. While the wide array of sibling list tools hints at consistency, the description could benefit from specifying typical use cases or expectations.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (one required: dashboardId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, constraints, examples). According to the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 all widgets by dashboard id' clearly states the action (get), resource (widgets), and scope (by dashboard id). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_widget' (single widget retrieval) and other list tools (e.g., list_dashboards, list_users). The verb+resource+scope pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., dashboard must exist), when not to use it, or any ordering/filtering capabilities. Without context, an agent cannot determine if this is the appropriate tool for a given scenario.

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