list_blocks

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 lists blocked users but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a simple format. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks completeness in behavioral details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and parameter but omits critical details like return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns a list of users, this leaves the agent guessing about the output structure and usage nuances.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'user_id' by explaining it's 'The ID of the user whose block list to retrieve.' This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic title 'User Id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for the parameter's semantics, though it doesn't cover format or constraints.

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: 'List all users blocked by a given user.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('users blocked'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_block' or 'delete_block', which prevents a perfect score.

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 when to choose 'list_blocks' over 'check_block' (which might check if a specific user is blocked) or other related tools. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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