qradar_list_building_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON string') and the pagination mechanism via limit/offset, which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then a clear Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the parameters and return type. No additional context is needed; the tool is self-contained and complete.

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 0% description coverage (only titles and defaults), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: filter_expr with an example, limit as maximum count, offset for pagination. This adds significant meaning 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 lists Building Blocks (BBs) in QRadar SIEM, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., qradar_list_offenses, qradar_list_rules) by naming the exact resource type.

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 purpose makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to list building blocks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity and sibling names provide implicit guidance. A 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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