generate_gutenberg_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates code but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (e.g., file structure, code snippets), or any potential side effects like file creation. For a code generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and output details without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Generate complete Gutenberg block code') and specifies the components included, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (generating multiple code components) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It mentions the output includes 'block.json, PHP registration, and React components' but doesn't detail the behavior, format, or any constraints. However, the high schema coverage for parameters provides some compensation, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., name, title, category). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters influence the generated code. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Generate complete Gutenberg block code including block.json, PHP registration, and React components.' It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'Gutenberg block code' with details about the output components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_gb_block' or 'generate_block_pattern', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'generate_gb_block' or 'generate_block_pattern', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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