get_widget_by_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions searching the widget tree and returning the widget ID if found, but does not state what happens when text is not found (error, null, empty result), nor does it clarify if the operation is read-only or has side effects. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 25 words. Every word earns its place, and the key action ('Find a widget') is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed in context), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It mentions the return value (widget ID) but omits details like return format or not-found behavior. For a straightforward tool, this is minimally viable but lacks completeness.

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 already describes the 'text' parameter as 'The text to search for' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional context, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and no extra value is contributed here.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find a widget by its text content.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_widget_options or get_widget_value by focusing on text-based search, making the verb+resource combination 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, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_focused_widget or view_application) would be more appropriate. This leaves the AI agent without contextual decision support.

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