Spy Read Blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the output is a human-readable outline rather than raw code or block data, and that it covers all scripts in a tab. However, it does not clarify prerequisites like whether a project/tab must be open, what 'tab' means, or whether this operation is strictly non-mutating.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior. It could be slightly more explicit by using a verb, but it contains no filler or redundant content.

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 simple and has an output schema, so return-value detail is not needed in the description. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves a meaningful gap: an agent cannot confidently determine what 'file' means or when to invoke this tool over its siblings.

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% and the description never mentions the only parameter, 'file'. There is no explanation of whether 'file' identifies a tab, a path, or a project file, nor what the empty-string default means. The agent must guess how to supply this parameter.

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 identifies the resource (block scripts), the scope (every script in a tab), and the output form (a readable outline). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the intent is clear enough for an agent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related siblings like spy_read_code, sb3_list_blocks, or spy_project_overview. The only usage signal is the name and the implied purpose of inspecting blocks, so the agent is left to infer context.

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