Sb3 Validate Blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is proxied and flags that custom extension blocks are ignored, which are genuine behavioral caveats. It does not state side effects, but the operation's validate-read-only nature is implied and the output schema covers return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and add the caveat without filler. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is compact and every clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation and the main limitation. It could be more explicit about what target identifiers look like and why 'proxied' matters, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 schema only provides type/default for target, so the description's 'Omit target for all targets' adds the key semantic. It clarifies that target is optional and that omission selects all targets; however, it doesn't specify the expected identifier format for a single target.

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 phrase 'Validate target blocks against the opcode catalog' names a specific action, object, and reference standard. It is clearly distinct from sibling block-related tools such as sb3_list_blocks or sb3_get_block_schema, even though no sibling is named.

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?

'Omit target for all targets' directly tells the agent how to invoke the tool for the all-targets case, and the advisory about custom extension blocks being ignored gives a relevant exclusion. It does not explicitly name a fallback tool or contrast with alternatives.

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