compare_blocks

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 adds the 'side by side' detail suggesting a comparative output format, but lacks safety information (read-only status), rate limits, or error conditions. However, since an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values.

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 optimally concise with two efficient sentences: one stating purpose and one documenting arguments. No redundant or filler text is present; every word earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (two integer parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It documents the parameters that the schema fails to describe, and the output schema handles return value documentation. It could be improved by mentioning what specific statistics are compared.

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 (only titles). The description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'height1: First block height' and 'height2: Second block height'. It clarifies the ordinal relationship between the two heights but does not add format constraints, validation rules, or examples.

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 specific action (compare), resource (block statistics), and method (side by side between two block heights). The 'side by side' phrasing effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_block' (single block) and 'get_block_stats' (retrieval without comparison).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_block' or 'get_block_stats', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring valid block heights or the maximum height range supported.

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