Get Blocker Resolutions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it discloses the result shape (2-5 options, consequences, evidence URLs), the required presentation behavior, the 'never choose' policy, and the reporting of previously recorded decisions including stale ones. It does not disclose side-effect status, auth, or error behavior, but the described operation appears read-only and the output behavior is clearly specified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds essential behavioral or usage detail. It is compact enough while communicating the exact user-interaction contract, output contents, and downstream next step.

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 an existing output schema, the description does not need to restate return values and instead adds valuable context: per-blocker interaction, verbatim presentation, no user substitution, and stale-decision reporting. The only notable completeness gap is the undocumented optional 'now' parameter, which prevents full self-sufficiency for a caller.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. 'run_dir' can be inferred from 'started run', but the optional 'now' parameter is entirely undocumented, including its format and effect. Since the description compensates for only one of the two parameters, it leaves a material 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?

Description states a specific action and resource: it returns questions and evidence-backed options for each unresolved blocker of a started run. It also distinguishes itself from downstream tools like record_blocker_decision by mentioning the exact call to make, rather than recording the decision itself.

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?

Clear usage context is given: use for each blocker of a started run, present options verbatim one at a time, and never decide for the user. It points to record_blocker_decision as the subsequent call, but it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or compare against sibling tools as alternatives.

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