sync_blocks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List sync blocks' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether there are any side effects, or how the results are structured. The term 'sync blocks' is unexplained, limiting the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

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 front-loaded with the action, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with a specialized concept like 'sync blocks'. The simplicity is fine, but combined with the lack of context, it borders on too terse.

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's one parameter and no output schema, the description could be adequate for a very simple list operation. However, the presence of sibling 'sync_blocks_list_inserts' indicates nuance that is not addressed. There is no context on what sync blocks are, what distinguishes them from inserts, or how to interpret the results. The description feels incomplete for an agent needing to make an informed call.

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 input schema has one parameter (documentId) with 100% description coverage in the schema ('Document ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. There is no extra semantic value, but the schema is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sync blocks') for a document. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'sync_blocks_list_inserts', which also lists sync-related blocks but specifically inserts. The description is unambiguous about the core operation but lacks differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sync_blocks_list_inserts' or other document list tools. The description gives no context for selecting this tool, which leaves the agent to guess the intended use case.

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