get_title_block

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

The description implies a read operation by using 'Get', but no annotations are provided to confirm non-destructiveness or safety. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it minimally discloses behavior. It does not mention return format or side effects, but for a simple getter with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It could mention that it retrieves title block properties like title, date, etc., but the output schema likely covers that. Slightly incomplete but acceptable.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'board title block fields', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'set_title_block' which is a write operation. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit context for when to invoke it, nor exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large number of sibling tools, some guidance would be beneficial.

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