list_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral scope by enumerating exclusions: layout blocks, anonymous blocks, and non-local (xref/external) definitions are omitted. It still does not state the read-only nature explicitly or describe ordering/return shape, so it is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifiers are packed efficiently into one clause and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the result set contains and excludes. It leaves the return shape (names only vs. full definitions) and the relationship to insert_block implicit, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify. No additional parameter meaning is needed or supplied.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('named, non-layout, non-anonymous local block definitions'), so an agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not name a sibling such as insert_block or create_block to differentiate itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 trailing clause 'that can be inserted' implies the downstream pairing with insert_block, giving an implicit workflow context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. list_layers, list_modelspace_entities), so guidance is only implied.

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