inspect_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a read operation ('Read') and emphasizes 'authoritative' block states, implying it returns ground truth rather than a cached view. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or any edge cases, though the simplicity of a read operation limits the gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds purpose within a compact clause. No filler or redundant statements, 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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The meaning of 'relative positions' is ambiguous (relative to what?), and the return structure is not described. An agent would need additional context or assumptions to call this tool reliably.

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 adds the important qualifier 'relative' to 'positions', but it does not explain the coordinate system, what the positions are relative to, or how the nested array structure maps to coordinates. This leaves most parameter meaning to be inferred from the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('authoritative block states'), and the operational context ('at relative positions, for placement and cleanup verification'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_blocks by focusing on targeting specific positions rather than enumerating all 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 description gives clear context on when to use this tool ('for placement and cleanup verification'), implying it is used for verifying specific block positions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some comparison to siblings to inference.

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