get_widget_value

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains what is returned per widget type, but does not mention that the operation is read-only (non-destructive) or any prerequisites beyond a valid widget ID. It adds moderate transparency but 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses bullet points to list return types efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose. Slightly longer than minimal but all content is valuable.

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 existence of an output schema, the description already explains return values per widget type thoroughly. It covers the main use case well. Could mention error conditions or edge cases, but overall complete for the agent's needs.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (widget_id). The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond 'The widget ID from get_ui_layout().' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool gets the value of a widget based on its type, and enumerates specific return types for different widget types (Entry/Text, Scale, Combobox, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_widget_value and get_widget_options.

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 usage is well implied: when you need the current value of a widget. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear. Lacks explicit exclusions.

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