check_issue_blocked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (blocked, blockers, total_dependencies, open_blockers), the pagination behavior, and the 404 error condition for repos lacking issue dependencies. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about return values, relationship to sibling tools, and error conditions, with zero 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?

Given the tool has no output schema or annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining the return fields, the internal pagination, and the specific 404 case. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check whether an issue is blocked') and defines the blocking condition. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by identifying as a convenience aggregator over `list_issue_dependencies`.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a convenience aggregator over `list_issue_dependencies` and highlights internal pagination as a differentiator. However, it doesn't provide an explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' statement beyond the relationship to list_issue_dependencies, so a small gap remains.

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