Inspect a Block Definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral fact that the tool returns all entities in the block, but it does not disclose edge cases such as missing block names or empty block definitions. With annotations covering the main behavioral concerns, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient to guide correct invocation. It does not cover error scenarios or relationship to dxf_get_blocks, but those are not essential given the strong structured metadata.

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 100%, and both file_path and block_name have clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('entities inside a named block definition'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like dxf_get_blocks by clarifying that this returns the contents of a block definition, not a list of block definitions.

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 clearly implies the usage context: when you need the contents of a specific block definition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource-oriented phrasing provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over the related get/summary tools.

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