list_blockers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only active (unresolved) blockers are listed and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or pagination 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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, return fields, and argument definition. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids all extraneous text.

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 simple tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose, argument, and return fields. It could mention behavior on invalid card_ref or if no blockers exist, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's usage.

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 0% description coverage, but the description provides a clear definition for card_ref: 'Card reference, e.g. ON-914'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, explaining the format and usage. The single parameter is well-addressed.

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 explicitly states 'List all active (unresolved) blockers on a card', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like block_card and unblock_card, which are mutating actions. The list of returned fields further clarifies purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as block_card or unblock_card. The description implies usage for viewing blockers, but lacks direct comparisons or conditions for selection.

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