Get Blocker Resolutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'get' by detailing the presentation behavior: 'Present them VERBATIM, one blocker at a time; never choose on the user's behalf.' It also discloses the content of the options (consequences, evidence URLs, and the exact record_blocker_decision call), which gives the agent a clear understanding of what to expect.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences add necessary detail about content and presentation rules. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Although the output schema exists, its content is not provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains what the output contains (questions, options, evidence URLs, call) but completely omits parameter semantics, which is critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description is also silent on error cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It fails to mention 'now' or 'run_dir' at all, leaving their purpose and expected values entirely undocumented. An agent cannot infer what to pass for either parameter based on the description, making this a significant gap.

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 function: it returns questions and evidence-backed options for unresolved blockers. It specifies the resource (blockers) and the action (get), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling record_blocker_decision by emphasizing that it presents options verbatim and never chooses on the user's behalf, which is the opposite of recording a decision.

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 when this tool should be used (when there are unresolved blockers to resolve) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions the exact record_blocker_decision call but does not explicitly say 'use this tool to retrieve options, then use record_blocker_decision to record the choice,' leaving the workflow inference to the agent.

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