get_block_type

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 states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if slug doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. 'Get' implies a read operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get a block type by slug'), followed by brief sections for args and returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose and parameters).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (beyond 'Block type details'), error conditions, or behavioral context. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It defines 'slug' as 'The block type slug', which slightly clarifies the parameter's role, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is insufficient to fully compensate. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but the description doesn't enrich semantics significantly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a block type by slug' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('block type'), with the parameter 'slug' providing additional context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_block_types' (plural) by focusing on a single item retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving a specific block type (vs. 'get_block_types' for listing), it doesn't explicitly state this distinction, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from naming alone.

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