list_block_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior—shallow listing, returned block IDs/types, optional text—but says nothing about pagination or result limits, which matters for a children-listing call on large pages.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the defining scope constraint, then the return shape, then the use case. No filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers purpose, depth semantics, optional text, and a use case. Only pagination/truncation behavior and parameter defaults are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the parameters. It covers include_text indirectly ('optionally their text content') and implies block_id can be a page or block, but never states the default (true) for include_text or any format for block_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List direct children of a block or page') and pins the scope with '(shallow, no recursion)', which implicitly contrasts with the deeper sibling read_page_deep. It stops short of naming an alternative, but an agent can still tell what this tool returns.

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?

'Useful for finding specific block IDs before surgical edits' gives a concrete when-to-use scenario that ties the tool to a workflow. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for recursive reading.

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