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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions features like journal page creation, custom properties, format selection, and automatic first block creation, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate page names.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points highlighting key features. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet points could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and some behavioral context. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and more detailed usage scenarios that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and mutation nature.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'journal page creation with date formatting' (relating to the journal parameter) and 'custom page properties (tags, status, etc.)' (relating to properties parameter), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 creates a new page in Logseq with optional properties, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like logseq_insert_block or logseq_get_all_pages, which handle different operations.

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 mentions 'Perfect for template-based page creation and knowledge management,' which implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like logseq_edit_block or logseq_insert_block. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('enter editing mode') but lacks behavioral details such as what 'editing mode' entails (e.g., UI changes, permissions required, or effects on other operations), rate limits, or error handling, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or what happens after entering editing mode, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (src_block and pos). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'src_block' references work or when to use 'pos'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('enter editing mode') and resource ('for a specific block'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'logseq_insert_block' or 'logseq_get_editing_block_content', which also involve block editing or content retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid block reference), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'logseq_exit_editing_mode' or 'logseq_insert_block', leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Exit current editing mode' implies a state change but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unsaved changes, or if it's reversible. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 (state-changing operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'exiting editing mode' means in practice, potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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%, with the single parameter 'select_block' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Exit current editing mode' clearly states the action (exit) and target (editing mode), but it's somewhat vague about what 'editing mode' entails in Logseq context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like logseq_edit_block or logseq_insert_block that also involve editing operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must be in editing mode first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like logseq_edit_block for entering editing mode.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'basic metadata' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., page names, creation dates) or operational details like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that lists all 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy for an AI 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 complexity of listing all pages in a graph, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what 'basic metadata' entails, how results are structured, or potential limitations (e.g., large graphs). This leaves the AI agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the optional 'repo' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing semantics.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all pages in the graph') with scope ('basic metadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'logseq_get_page' or 'logseq_get_current_page', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'logseq_get_page' (for a single page) or 'logseq_get_current_page' (for the active page). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an open graph, or exclusions, which limits its utility for an AI agent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying it's read-only, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires user authentication, if it works offline, or what happens if no page is active. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with user workspace data.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy 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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'currently active' means in context, what format the return value has, or how errors are handled, leaving the agent with unanswered questions about implementation details.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already fully documents that no arguments are needed. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('currently active page or block'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'logseq_get_page' or 'logseq_get_current_page_content', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'logseq_get_page' (which might retrieve a specific page) or 'logseq_get_current_page_content' (which might retrieve content instead of metadata). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires an active Logseq session, what happens if no current page exists (error vs. null), the format of 'hierarchical block structure' (e.g., tree vs. list), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and resource ('Get hierarchical block structure of current page'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no fluff or repetition.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches structured data. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON tree), error conditions, or dependencies like needing an open page. For a read operation with potential complexity in output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as it efficiently omits unnecessary information.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical block structure of current page'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'logseq_get_page_content' by specifying 'current page' rather than any page. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'logseq_get_current_page' (which might return metadata vs. content), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a current page open), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'logseq_get_page_content' (for arbitrary pages) or 'logseq_get_editing_block_content' (for focused editing). Usage is implied by 'current page' but not explicitly defined.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no block is being edited (e.g., error or null return), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get content'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the exact resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a minimal viable explanation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or return format, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally cover more of these contextual elements.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for this case. It adds value by clarifying the resource ('currently edited block'), though this is more about purpose than parameter semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('content of currently edited block'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'logseq_get_page_content' by specifying 'currently edited block' rather than a named page. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'logseq_get_current_page_content' or 'logseq_edit_block', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a block must be actively being edited), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'logseq_get_current_page_content' or 'logseq_get_page_content'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select the right tool in a given scenario.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., if the page doesn't exist). The description mentions 'detailed information' but lacks specifics on response format or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific page'), making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity of retrieving page data with metadata and content, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., structure of metadata, content format), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent use.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('src_page' and 'include_children') with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying parameter interactions or usage examples. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific page including metadata and content', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'logseq_get_page_content' or 'logseq_get_all_pages', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose 'logseq_get_page' over 'logseq_get_page_content' (which might retrieve just content without metadata) or 'logseq_get_all_pages' (for listing pages). There's no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets block hierarchy, but doesn't explain what 'block hierarchy' entails (e.g., structure, format, depth), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence ('Get block hierarchy for specific page') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what 'block hierarchy' looks like), behavioral aspects like safety or performance, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with these contextual gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive information to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'src_page' clearly documented as 'Page name or UUID' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get block hierarchy for specific page' clearly indicates a retrieval action ('Get') on a specific resource ('block hierarchy for specific page'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'logseq_get_page' or 'logseq_get_current_page_content', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this tool from other page/content retrieval 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings such as 'logseq_get_page' or 'logseq_get_current_page_content', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits like support for 'before/after positioning and property management,' which are not obvious from the schema alone. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and immediately listing capabilities in a bullet-like structure. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with colons and dashes could be slightly cleaner for optimal readability.

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 complexity of a block insertion tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key use cases and parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'before/after positioning' (hinting at the 'before' parameter) and 'custom UUIDs' (referencing 'custom_uuid'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Insert a new block') and resource ('into Logseq'), distinguishing it from siblings like logseq_create_page (creates pages) and logseq_edit_block (modifies existing blocks). It provides concrete examples of what can be created, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by listing the types of blocks it can create (page-level, nested, with custom UUIDs). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using logseq_create_page for creating new pages instead of page-level blocks.

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