BlockRazor Docs

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints. Description adds that answers are synthesized with source links and can be tailored via 'goal' parameter, but doesn't detail other behavioral traits like latency or error handling.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states core functionality, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (synthesized answer with links) and the role of the optional 'goal' parameter. Missing details on edge cases but still complete for typical use.

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 already describes both parameters well (100% coverage). Description adds context that 'goal' tailors the answer, which goes beyond the schema description.

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?

Clear verb ('ask'), resource ('BlockRazor'), and outcome ('synthesized answer with links'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'searchDocumentation'.

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?

States when to prefer this tool (direct answers) versus alternatives ('searchDocumentation'/'getPage' for browsing). Provides clear guidance on usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the return is markdown, it contains followable links for navigation, and it is the complete page rather than a snippet. It does not cover error behavior for invalid or unreachable URLs, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rule and return characteristics. The opening sentence and 'Use this when you have a page URL and want to read its content' partially overlap, but nothing is padded meaningfully.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (full markdown, embedded navigation links), plus the relationship to searchDocumentation. What is missing is failure behavior for bad URLs, a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it specifies that full URLs are accepted and gives a concrete example format (https://docs.blockrazor.io/getting-started), clarifying what string to supply beyond the schema's bare 'The URL of the page to fetch'.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full markdown content of a documentation page) with named source (BlockRazor). It is clearly separable from sibling searchDocumentation by the 'full page vs partial results' distinction.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('when you have a page URL and want to read its content') and names the alternative it complements: searchDocumentation returns partial content, getPage retrieves the complete page when more detail is needed. When-to-use and alternative routing are both present.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds that the search returns contextual content with titles and direct links, giving the agent insight into the response format. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage guidance, then output description. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (titles and links) and the scope (BlockRazor documentation). Could mention limitations like result count, but overall sufficient.

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 only parameter 'query' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the query parameter, such as format or expected input. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 searches documentation for various content types (code examples, API references, guides). It specifies the resource (documentation) and action (search). While it distinguishes itself from siblings by being a search tool, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like askQuestion or getPage.

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 explicitly lists when to use: to answer questions about BlockRazor, find specific documentation, understand features, or locate implementation details. It provides clear context for use but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by establishing that submissions are one-per-issue, should not be repeated within a conversation, and require a sanity check first. It stops short of saying what the team does with the report, whether the user sees it, or what the call returns, which is why it does not reach a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (triggers, exclusions, sanity check, dedup). The final sentence partially restates the purpose already stated up front, which is the only real redundancy in an otherwise tight block.

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?

For a 3-parameter, non-destructive submission tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the operative guidance an agent needs to call it correctly. What is missing is post-call behavior — whether a confirmation or ticket ID returns and whether the user should be told a report was filed.

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%, so all three parameters including the optional 'goal' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (formatting of pageUrl, what counts as a 'distinct issue' for content granularity), so the 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Report an issue in the documentation of BlockRazor') and names the audience that consumes it. The closing sentence explicitly separates it from sibling retrieval tools like getPage and searchDocumentation by ruling out accuracy confirmation.

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?

It gives explicit triggers (outdated, contradictory, missing, unhelpful content; user-reported problems even if unverified), an explicit exclusion (do not use to confirm a page is accurate), a self-check step (quick sanity check before reporting), and deduplication rules (one call per distinct issue, no repeats). This is about as complete a when/when-not specification as a tool description gets.

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