pihole_get_top_blocked

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover important traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the top blocked domains'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. While adequate for a simple read operation, it doesn't fully address the agent's needs for informed tool selection and invocation, especially with no output schema to clarify returns.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('count' and 'visualize'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of the ASCII art or default behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'top blocked domains', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pihole_get_top_permitted' (which gets top permitted domains) or 'pihole_get_blacklist' (which gets the full blacklist), missing an opportunity for clearer sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pihole_get_top_permitted' for permitted domains or 'pihole_get_blacklist' for the full list, nor does it specify contexts such as monitoring blocked traffic or troubleshooting. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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