get_recent_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'From monitoring history' hints that this is a read over previously captured data rather than a live query, but there is no disclosure of ordering, whether results are capped by the monitoring buffer, or what happens when no monitoring session exists.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being tight and complete.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum state the monitoring prerequisite and what is returned. The one piece of genuinely useful context, that results come from a prior monitoring session, is only hinted at.

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?

There is one parameter ('limit', default 10) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. An agent cannot tell whether limit caps block count, is required, or how the default interacts with available history.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Get recent blocks') with a scope qualifier ('from monitoring history'), which does distinguish it from get_blockchain_info at a high level. However, 'monitoring history' is never defined, and the description doesn't clarify how this differs from get_recent_logs or get_recent_pending_transactions, which follow the identical naming pattern.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. Critically, the description implies a dependency on a monitoring session being active but never states that start_block_monitoring must be run first, nor does it name any alternative for raw block data.

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