list_block_children

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the operation is shallow (non-recursive) and returns block IDs, types, and optionally text. However, it does not mention potential pagination for large result sets, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: shallow listing, optional text inclusion, and practical use. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling prevent a perfect score, but it is largely complete for the tool's purpose.

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%. The description only hints at include_text with 'optionally their text content', but does not explain the block_id format, constraints, or the default behavior of include_text. Since no additional parameter details are given, the description falls short of compensating for the schema gap.

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 'List', the resource 'direct children of a block or page', and the scope 'shallow, no recursion'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a listing operation specific to block children, unlike create, update, or delete tools.

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 provides a usage hint ('Useful for finding specific block IDs before surgical edits') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like read_page_deep for recursive children. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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