Get CMS Block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the staging filter behavior and the fields returned, which are behavioral details not present in annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or error cases, but for a read-only lookup the given context is sufficient. The addition of the staging filter specifically addresses a non-obvious behavior, raising above baseline 3.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The core lookup behavior is stated first, followed by return fields and the staging filter, and the sibling pointer is at the end. Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the most important action, and the sibling note is placed after primary usage, which is logical.

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 output schema exists (though not shown in full, the signal says 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values in detail. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description covers the core lookup, optional staging filter, and points to the sibling. For a read-only tool with zero required parameters, this is complete. No critical information is missing.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'block_id' says 'Use instead of identifier when known', 'profile' mentions override, 'magentoRoot' explains the default). The description itself adds little beyond the schema—it restates the identifier/block_id distinction but relies on the schema for detailed semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the 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 looks up a CMS block by identifier or block_id, lists specific return fields (title, is_active, timestamps), mentions the staging filter, and distinguishes from audit_cms_page_blocks. The verb 'looks up' and the resource 'CMS block' are explicit, and the sibling differentiation is direct. This is a model example of purpose clarity.

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 usage context: when to look up a block directly (by identifier or ID) and when to use audit_cms_page_blocks instead ('For blocks embedded in a page'). It also implies the staging filter is automatically applied 'when present', alerting the agent to a contextual condition. No alternative is missed; the guidance is explicit and actionable.

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