Get Page Blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context about stable blockId and widgetInstanceId for app-widget blocks, which is meaningful. It doesn't describe the response format, pagination, or ordering semantics, but given strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single concise sentence plus a follow-up about blockId stability. Both earn their place: the second sentence explains the significance of blockId for subsequent operations (like targeting blocks for updates/moves). No wasted words.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only list operation with strong annotations and only 2 parameters, so the completeness bar is lower. The description adequately explains the return content (ordered blocks, stable IDs). However, it doesn't explain the ordering semantics (what 'ordered' means), how to obtain portalRef/pageRef, or what distinguishes this from kilango_get_page. Adequate but with room for improvement.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description implies the tool takes a portalRef and pageRef to identify which page's blocks to retrieve, but doesn't explicitly explain what these references mean, their format, or how to obtain them. The names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantics 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 verb ('Return') and the resource ('ordered blocks of a page'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kilango_get_page (which likely returns page metadata) by focusing on blocks specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like kilango_get_page or kilango_get_page_navigation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the read-only focus is clear (distinct from add_content_block/update_content_block/reorder_blocks), the description doesn't mention exclusions or when it should be preferred over related getters like kilango_get_page or kilango_get_page_navigation.

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