seerr_list_blocklist

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's already known: it doesn't disclose pagination defaults, the effect of the 'filter' parameter (which defaults to 'manual'), or whether the list is paginated. The description simply restates the operation without additional transparency.

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, with a single sentence and no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters; brevity comes at the expense of useful structure like parameter explanations or usage examples. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative.

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 four parameters and no description coverage, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing guidance on pagination, filtering, and alternative tools. A new agent would not know how to effectively use skip/take/filter/search without external documentation.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (skip, take, filter, search). The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters do, how pagination works, or what 'filter: manual' means, leaving the invocation guesswork.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'blocklisted items', clearly indicating a read operation for a collection. The plural 'items' and the tool name 'list_blocklist' suggest it returns multiple items, distinguishing it from 'get_blocklist'. However, it doesn't explicitly state the scope (e.g., all items or filtered) or differentiate from sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seerr_get_blocklist, seerr_create_blocklist, or seerr_delete_blocklist. It also fails to mention the purpose of parameters like skip, take, filter, and search, leaving the agent without context on pagination or filtering behavior.

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