doc_list_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. Listing is clearly a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that only blocks at the top level are returned. It also doesn't mention any caveats like the need for authentication or what happens with very large documents besides pagination.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the main purpose and pagination capability. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning every word.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains. It only says 'list all blocks' without detailing the block structure, whether nested blocks are included, or how pagination responses are shaped. This is insufficient for a complex data type like document blocks, especially given the 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 100% with each parameter documented (page_size, page_token, document_id, document_revision_id). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only repeats the pagination concept already present in page_size and page_token descriptions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all blocks in Feishu document'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like doc_get_block (single block) and doc_create_blocks (creating). It also mentions pagination, which is a key feature of this listing tool.

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 use for retrieving all blocks in a document, and the mention of pagination suggests suitability for large documents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_get_block for a single block or wiki_list_nodes for wiki content. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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