Find Blocks By Name

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the scan limit and the meaning of the compact envelope's total, going beyond the annotation and helping the agent interpret results correctly.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second a key caveat. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema present and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description covers the main behavior and limitation. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though a tiny bit more detail on default behavior (e.g., what happens with no matches) would make it fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter thoroughly described (e.g., fields projection syntax, compact envelope shape). The description supplements by explaining the scanning boundary and total semantics, adding context to the compact parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all insert references to a specific block definition.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like block_list (which lists definitions) and block_insert (which creates references), so the agent understands exactly what this tool does.

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 implies usage for locating where a block is inserted, and adds a crucial limitation about the 200-INSERT scan bound, giving context for expected scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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