seshat_explain_blockers

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Read-only: reports blockers and never clears, waives or overrides one.' It also explains the return format ('one entry per blocker... Outcome is 'blocked'...'). This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured: purpose, when to use, when not to use, return format, and safety note. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded, with no filler. Despite multiple paragraphs, each clause provides distinct value.

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?

The tool is a diagnostic read operation with no side effects; the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and limitations. With output schema present and safety annotations provided, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only refers to 'one table' and 'named table,' which is already implied. No additional syntax or format info is provided.

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 function: 'Explain what blocks one table's next stage, and who can clear it.' The verb 'explain' and resource 'blockers' are specific, and the 'Not for' section explicitly differentiates from sibling tools (seshat_get_status, seshat_get_next_action), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use when: a table is not advancing...' and 'Not for: an all-table overview (use seshat_get_status) or picking the next step (use seshat_get_next_action).' This provides clear context and names alternatives, which is ideal for agent decision-making.

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