detect_blockers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some transparency by mentioning output components ('evidence and risk breakdowns') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. For a detection tool, more context is expected.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the verb and object, with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficiently packed.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema, but the description is too terse to convey use cases, prerequisites, or edge cases. The output schema may explain return values, but the description fails to place the tool in a broader workflow context.

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 0% description coverage—the description does not mention parameters at all. It fails to explain the meaning of 'principalId' or 'workflowId', leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.

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 a specific action ('Detect') and resource ('workflow blockers'), with additional qualifiers ('deterministic', 'with evidence and risk breakdowns') that add specificity. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'escalate_blocker' but does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the description alone.

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