list_block_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the output semantics (per-surface counts, pages, `registered`, `orphanTypes`, `unusedTypes`) and clarifies how `includeHistory` extends counting to page version history including deleted pages. It does not mention permissions, performance, or lack of side effects, but for a read/list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 dense and packs multiple lists and definitions into the first sentence, but every clause contributes meaning and the usage guidance follows immediately. The structure could be slightly clearer with more separation between output semantics and usage advice, but it remains focused and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job of covering what the tool returnseb each surface, counts, affected pages, and the meaning of `registered`/`orphanTypes`/`unusedTypes`. It also gives the migration workflow context. Minor gaps remain around response shape or potential pagination, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description mostly restates what the schema says about `types` and `includeHistory`, adding only minor context such as 'including versions of deleted pages' for `includeHistory`. This meets the baseline but does not substantially go 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show where each block type is stored across the workspace') and enumerates the exact surfaces tracked, including draft/published page blocks, layout regions, and developer drafts. It also defines the key output concepts (`registered`, `orphanTypes`, `unusedTypes`), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like `list_block_types`.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it before renaming or removing a block type in code,' and even names follow-up tools (`update_block_content` / `remove_block_from_page`). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with an alternative like `list_block_types`, so it falls short of a full 5.

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