read_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It comprehensively covers behaviors: recursive children for containers, error for unsupported root blocks, omission with warnings for nested unsupported types, rendering of AI meeting-notes as synthetic toggles with warnings, and exclusion of transcripts. No missing critical traits.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. The main purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of block reading (multiple block types, recursive containers, unsupported types), the description covers key behaviors. No output schema exists, but the description partially compensates by mentioning markdown and warnings. Lacks structural details about the markdown output format.

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 100% description coverage for the sole parameter (block_id). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating 'by ID'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 reads one block by ID as markdown and includes details about container blocks and error handling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_page or read_toggle, which reduces clarity for selection.

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 implies when to use the tool (to read a block by ID) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or when alternatives like read_page are more appropriate. No exclusions or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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