pcb_block_list

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

The annotations are empty, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no details are provided about prerequisites, whether the list includes all blocks or only those from a specific selection, or what the output structure looks like. The phrase 'created from selected footprints' adds some context about the block origin but remains ambiguous.

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?

A single, clear sentence of ten words. No waste, all words earn their place. The structure is front-loaded with the verb.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description explains the core functionality. However, it could be more explicit about scope (whether it lists all stored blocks or only those tied to a selection) and how the blocks are 'created from selected footprints.' The description is adequate but leaves room for interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to annotate. The description contributes by defining the object being listed, which is the only relevant semantic input. According to the rubric, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4.

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 the verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'stored PCB design blocks' with an additional qualifier 'created from selected footprints.' This clearly states the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools such as pcb_get_footprints or pcb_block_place.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context signals such as 'use this when you need to see all blocks' or exclusionary statements are present. The description simply states the action without any usage direction.

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