Block MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool pauses execution, which implies it's a blocking operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it's synchronous, if it respects system limits, what happens during the pause, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, though the second sentence could be more clearly integrated.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and some usage context but lacks important behavioral details for a timing/blocking operation. For a tool that controls execution flow, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 for its single parameter 'seconds'. The description adds some semantic context by specifying it's 'a set number of seconds' and implies it's for timing in automated loops. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 purpose: 'Pauses execution for a set number of seconds.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that tells what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since none are timing-related tools.

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 some usage context: 'REQUIRED for running automated loops to reply messages.' This implies when to use it (for automated loops in message workflows) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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