get_blocks_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses partial-failure semantics ('单个块失败不会中断整体，失败项会返回 error 字段') and sensitive-information masking in kramdown output, both of which are valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or ordering, but the key quirks are covered.

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 organized into compact labeled sections (适用场景, 注意事项, Args, Returns) and every section contributes operational information. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall the structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With a single self-evident parameter and an output schema present, the description adds the important contextual details an agent needs: batch usage rationale, per-block partial failure, the error field, and sensitive-information masking. It could additionally mention batch-size limits or how error values are represented, but it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, and the Args section mostly restates the schema: 'block_ids (List[str]): 块 ID 列表'. This adds no meaningful constraints or semantics such as maximum batch size, duplicate handling, ordering, or required behavior, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with '批量获取多个块的完整内容', which clearly states a specific verb, resource, and batch scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_block_content by emphasizing multiple blocks and reduced call overhead, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says it applies to '一次性拉取多个块内容，减少多次调用开销', providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to use get_block_content for single-block fetches or give exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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