roam_search_block_refs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context: results must be interpreted based on graph conventions (calling roam_get_guidelines even for reads). This goes beyond the structured annotations by warning that behavior depends on per-graph conventions.

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 two short paragraphs: a focused purpose statement followed by a critical warning. Every sentence is useful, no filler, and the most important usage instruction is front-loaded with 'IMPORTANT.'

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 full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's capability and a key prerequisite. It could mention default behavior when no parameters are provided, but 'find all block references' is already implied, so it is nearly 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 covers all parameters with descriptions, providing a solid baseline. The description adds relationship semantics: block_uid targets a specific block, title targets page references, and page_title_uid scopes the search to a page or graph-wide. This helps agents understand how to combine parameters effectively.

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 'Search for block references within a page or across the entire graph' and lists specific modes (specific block, page title, all references). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling text-search tools like roam_search_by_text, even though no alternatives are named.

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 conveys when to use the tool (searching for references) and gives an explicit directive to call roam_get_guidelines first due to convention-dependent behavior. It does not explicitly compare with alternative search tools for when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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