Sb3 Find Blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Query' signals a read-only operation, 'proxied' adds a transport/behavioral note, and 'not the VM' clarifies that no VM execution is involved. It does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated, but the query language and the tool's purpose make that reasonably clear.

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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence contributes meaningful context. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is slightly vague and could be expanded or removed, but overall the prose is tight.

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 description provides the core purpose, filter semantics, and prerequisite, and the output schema covers return shape. Yet it omits meaning for two schema parameters (hat and limit), and the topLevel-only phrasing is ambiguous against the actual parameter list. An agent could therefore mis-set filters or wonder how to express 'topLevel-only'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that opcode is a substring and that filters combine with AND, and it mentions fieldValue and inputName. However, it leaves hat and limit unexplained, and the 'topLevel-only' filter does not directly correspond to any schema parameter, creating ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Query'), resource ('every target's blocks map'), and scope ('in the open project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sb3_get_target or sb3_list_blocks by emphasizing all targets.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Needs an open project') and an explicit exlusion ('not the VM'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool or explain exactly when to prefer this over sb3_list_blocks, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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