roam_search_block_refs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the read nature of the operation but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but not detailed enough to fully inform the agent.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and quickly elaborate on search capabilities. No superfluous information is present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of block references or UIDs). It currently only describes input behavior, leaving a significant gap for the agent regarding expected results.

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 has 100% coverage and includes descriptions for each parameter. The tool's general description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: searching for block references within a page or across the entire graph. It specifies the types of searches (specific block, page title, all references), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling search tools that focus on text, dates, or tags.

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 outlines when to use the tool (for block references) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it could clarify that roam_search_by_text is more appropriate for general text searches. This lack of exclusions limits the score.

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