list_library_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. It discloses the behavioral trait of being device documentation independent of project state, but does not mention performance implications or that it might be a large list. It also doesn't discuss return details beyond the output schema, but gives context that it lists all blocks. This is adequate context beyond the basic 'list' action, but not exhaustive.

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 efficient with a clear verb and resource, and the paragraph about device documentation is front-loaded. The Args section is well-structured with each parameter on its own line, but the entire description is somewhat wordy; the purpose and usage could be tightened. Still, each sentence earns its place, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 is a simple read-only listing with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return details don't need explanation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the tool executes quickly or that it is safe, but that is implied by 'device documentation'. Minor gap: doesn't differentiate from list_fb_catalog clearly, but it mentions 'firmware library' which helps. Overall complete for its complexity.

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 no descriptions for the three optional parameters (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining each: search as case-insensitive substring on block name, library as filter by library, limit as maximum count. This adds meaning but is largely straightforward from the parameter names. It does not describe the default behavior when parameters are empty, but the schema provides defaults. Baseline 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 lists function blocks provided by the MotionWorks firmware library, distinguishing it from project state tools. It explicitly notes it is device documentation, which differentiates it from siblings like list_fb_catalog or search_library, and includes usage context about what it does not include.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to find out what is available before writing code, and that it works without opening a project. It contrasts with project state tools and mentions it includes blocks this project never uses, which is critical guidance for the agent to choose this over alternatives.

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