list_source_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide a key behavioral trait: 'sin importar nada' explicitly states it does not import anything, implying a non-mutating, read-only operation. It lacks details about error handling or whether the source must be open, but the core safety disclosure is present.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the first states the object and non-import behavior, the second gives the practical use case. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it clarifies the overall purpose and non-import behavior. However, the lack of parameter semantics for 'limit' and 'filter' means an agent cannot fully infer correct invocation from the description alone.

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 must compensate. It only vaguely relates 'source' to 'OTRO archivo' and provides no explanation for 'limit' or 'filter'. The defaults of 400 and '' are not contextualized, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 tool lists block names available in another file ('Nombres de bloque disponibles en OTRO archivo') and explicitly distinguishes it from importing or bringing blocks. This verb+resource+scope framing differentiates it from sibling tools like list_blocks and import_block.

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?

'Sirve para resolver un nombre antes de traerlo' gives explicit when-to-use context: resolve a block name before importing it. The mention of 'OTRO archivo' implies it is for external sources, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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