bale_get_blocked_users

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key trait, but the description says nothing about authentication/session requirements, pagination, or whether the result is scoped to the active account only (it does imply the active account). Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 no filler, and the scope ('currently blocked', 'active account') is packed into the first clause. Nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and a parameterless read tool is inherently simple. The description covers what an agent needs to select it, though it omits session/auth prerequisites that would be relevant in this multi-session toolkit.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users currently blocked by the active account'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like bale_block_user or bale_unblock_user, but the read-vs-mutate distinction is self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to enumerate blocked contacts, typically before unblocking one. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active session being required), and no exclusions pointing to alternatives.

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