pihole_get_blocking_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Check') but doesn't mention potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific status values are returned. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks operational details.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool.

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?

For a simple 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but could be more complete by specifying the return format (e.g., boolean enabled/disabled) or any prerequisites. It meets minimum viability but has room for enhancement.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

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 specific action ('Check') and resource ('Pi-hole blocking status'), distinguishing it from siblings like pihole_disable_blocking or pihole_enable_blocking by focusing on read-only status verification rather than modification.

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 usage context (when you need to know if blocking is active), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pihole_get_stats or provide exclusion criteria. It's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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