blockers_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details such as 'computed satisfaction state' and the active_only default semantics, but it does not clarify whether filtering is conjunctive, how results are ordered, or whether any side effects exist beyond reading.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact bullet explanations for each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples add meaningful value without bloat.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers all parameters and the key computed output concept. It is slightly incomplete in lacking alternative-tool routing and filter combination semantics, but is otherwise well-rounded for a query tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters with concrete examples, allowed values for trigger_type, and the default for active_only. This is strong parameter documentation.

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 blockers and mentions filtering, which is specific and distinct from siblings like blockers_add and blockers_resolve. It does not explicitly contrast with blockers_check, so it stops short of full 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 implies the tool is for listing blockers with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like blockers_check or blockers_resolve. No usage context or exclusion criteria are given.

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