get_block_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details beyond the action: returned kramdown will have sensitive information masked, and block IDs/timestamps in SiYuan attribute markers will be preserved. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but for a read operation these disclosures are substantive.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, applicable scenarios, notes, args, and returns. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each section earns its place, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers the key context an agent needs: what is fetched, the relevant use case, and important output characteristics like sensitive-data masking and preservation of locating markers. It does not discuss failure modes, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 for the undocumented block_id parameter. The 'Args: block_id (str): 块的 ID' line essentially restates the parameter name and adds little semantic value beyond what 'Block Id' in the schema already suggests. It does not explain where to find the ID, expected format, or edge cases.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: '获取指定块的完整 Markdown 内容' (get the full Markdown content of a specified block). This clearly states what the tool does and implies a singular-block scope, which helps differentiate it from the plural sibling get_blocks_content, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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 '适用场景' section explicitly states when to use the tool: reading a single block's kramdown source for review or subsequent processing. This provides clear context, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives.

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