block_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description discloses nothing about authentication requirements, whether results are paginated or capped, or the shape of the returned entries.

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 words, front-loaded and waste-free. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient: an agent knows what it returns at a high level but not the entry fields, ordering, or limits. No output schema exists to absorb that gap, so a little more context would help.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 phrase 'List blocked users' names a verb and resource, so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a plain-language restatement of the tool name 'block_list' and adds no scope detail (pagination, ordering, whose block list) that would distinguish it from siblings like block, unblock, or contacts.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, despite obvious sibling tools (block, unblock) that an agent must choose between. Nothing states whether this lists the caller's own blocked users or a global list, nor what condition should trigger its use.

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