pv_blocked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a non-mutating, agent-scoped listing of recent items. However, it does not disclose whether there are limits on 'recent', what fields are returned, or whether this covers all sessions or only the current one.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying what is returned and for whom.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool the description is nearly sufficient, but it relies on undefined concepts such as 'BLOCK decisions' and an unspecified 'recent' window. It also does not explain the return structure, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter-level ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a concrete resource ('recent BLOCK decisions'), and an explicit scope ('for this agent'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling pv_decide because it focuses on blocked outcomes rather than decision-making or execution.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pv_decide, or when it should be preferred over a general decision-history view. The description implies a read-only history check but does not state exclusions or competing tool conditions.

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