Read Fenced Block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it fails with not_found, operates on the active vault unless vaultPath is given, and language-specific dispatching. No contradictions.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose and key parameter behaviors. Every sentence adds value 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 5 parameters, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: how to specify location (blockId/index), required language, vault behavior, and failure mode. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is high (80%) with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying blockId is preferred, index defaults to 0, and language is required for parser dispatch. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 reads a fenced block's source and metadata, using specific locators (blockId or index). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blocks.list (list blocks) and blocks.update (update blocks) by being a read operation.

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 locate the block (by blockId or index) and the required language parameter, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like blocks.list or blocks.update. The read-only nature is stated, implying when to use, but no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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