inspect_block

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating inspection ('Radiografia... sin insertarla') and lists the analysis types (layers, nested blocks, bbox, residues). However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects beyond insertion.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with a structured list of outputs. No filler or redundancy, making it efficient despite its length.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, and the description explains what the tool returns but not how to use its parameters. The lack of parameter guidance and explicit usage conditions make it incomplete for complex invocation, but the core purpose is well-articulated.

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?

The description mentions 'bloque' and 'definicion' but never explains the 'name' parameter (presumably the block definition name) or the optional 'limit' and 'list_entities' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description should define these, but it doesn't, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 begins with 'Radiografia de una definicion de bloque sin insertarla', which clearly identifies an inspection action on block definitions without insertion. It enumerates specific outputs (layers, nested blocks, bounding box, residual bindings), distinguishing it from siblings like insert_block or list_blocks.

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 phrase 'sin insertarla' implies the tool is for pre-insertion analysis, providing clear context without explicitly naming alternatives. It doesn't state when not to use it or identify sibling alternatives, but the non-insertion caveat gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select it over insert_block or list_blocks.

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