block_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about output format (raw bytes vs. text), error behavior for invalid block numbers, or how part/count interact. For an unannotated tool this is a substantial 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action and the workflow cue come first. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of what leaves the behavioral gaps unfilled.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is one short sentence. It does not supply enough for an agent to call the tool correctly on ambiguous inputs such as count or as_text.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'By number' weakly clarifies that block is a block index, but image, part, count, and especially as_text (which changes the output representation) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read file-system blocks by number'), which is distinct from the file-level 'read' and 'disk_read' siblings. The parenthetical ties it to a concrete forensic workflow, so an agent knows roughly what it returns. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with disk_read/read.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context: use this to follow up hits from grep_unallocated. That is genuine routing guidance, not merely implied usage. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not say how it relates to the similar disk_read or read tools.

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