Get 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, and it does disclose what each format returns. However, it says nothing about behavior on an invalid/missing ID, permission requirements, or whether the read has side effects (it does not explicitly state this is a read-only, safe operation).

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core action and the format distinction are front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers both parameters and the differing return shapes for each format. It is slightly short of complete because error handling and the read-only nature of the operation are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining why to pick kramdown (it surfaces block attribute IDs for locating nested blocks to edit), a use case the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one block by ID'), making it easy to pair with insert_block/update_block/delete_block siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as get_document or a traversal tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 is only implied: the reader infers this is for fetching a single known block ID. There is no guidance on how to obtain a block ID, no when-not-to-use (e.g. listing many blocks), and no pointer to the block-editing tools, other than the indirect hint about 'locating nested blocks to edit'.

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