qui_list_cross_seed_blocklist

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers that this is a read-only operation. The description adds that it's a GET request but discloses no additional behavioral details (e.g., returns a list, no side effects, auth needs). With the annotation covering safety, the description adds minimal value, so a low score is appropriate.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the endpoint. It packs three pieces of guidance without fluff. A bit dense but efficient. Could be split for readability, but it earns a high score.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return value explanation is not necessary. However, the description does not clarify what the blocklist contains, when to use it, or any request-specific details. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it effectively beyond the endpoint itself.

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 is very open (arguments with additionalProperties true, 0% schema description coverage). The description compensates somewhat by explaining the generic argument structure: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. However, it does not provide endpoint-specific parameter details (e.g., pagination, filters, expected keys), leaving the agent to guess what to pass.

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 names the specific endpoint (GET /cross-seed/blocklist/) and the HTTP verb, making it clear this tool retrieves the cross-seed blocklist. It does not explicitly say 'list' but the endpoint and tool name imply it. It distinguishes from add/delete blocklist entry tools by focusing on the GET endpoint.

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 explains how to pass arguments (path variables, query values, body) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or related tools. This is essentially call syntax, not usage context.

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