get_block

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get detailed information' without specifying what information is included (e.g., block configuration, layout, styling), whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), or any error/not-found behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, front-loading the key verb and resource.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with two well-documented parameters, and the description covers the basic action. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know the structure of the 'detailed information' returned. There is also no mention of prerequisites or how this differs from other block-related tools. The description is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 already provides descriptions for both screen_id ('The DAKboard screen ID') and block_id ('The block ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, formats, or relationships beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'block' and clarifies the scope 'on a DAKboard screen'. This distinguishes it from list_blocks (which lists blocks) and update_block (which modifies), making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_blocks for retrieving multiple blocks or get_screen for screen-level details. No context is provided about prerequisites or what to do if the block ID is unknown.

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