get_blocked_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type and the error condition, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The term 'Get' implies read-only, but it is not explicit.

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 compact and well-structured, using sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The main purpose is stated first, and there is no fluff.

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 an output schema present, the return structure is defined. The description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and what error it raises. It is adequate for a simple getter with a single parameter.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It provides a brief but sufficient explanation: 'site_url: The URL of the site'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name.

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 states the action (get), resource (blocked pages/directories), and scope (for a site). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_blocked_url and remove_blocked_url by being the retrieval operation.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to add/remove operations, nor does it specify any conditions for use.

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