get_block_kramdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation via 'Get' and specifies the output format ('kramdown source code'). However, it does not disclose return structure (e.g., how multiple IDs are returned) or error behavior, which is a noticeable gap given no output schema.

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, dense sentence that leads with the verb and object, with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 simple 1-parameter read operation, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and omits return format details, but within the tool's low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with block_id fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('kramdown source code'), and the target ('SiYuan note blocks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_block or siyuan_query_sql. It also accurately notes the capability to fetch one or multiple blocks.

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 implies the use case: when the agent needs raw kramdown source for SiYuan blocks. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like siyuan_query_sql or search, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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