describe_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: it mentions the source is 'the Rust schema, the engine's authoritative source', and explains the default behavior of include_rows to save tokens. No contradictions or gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 concise yet information-dense. The first sentence encapsulates the core purpose, and the second paragraph efficiently explains an optional parameter with clear reasoning. No wasted words; each part contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 complexity (returns schema fields, validation, editability rules) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: identity, per-field schema details, row keys, and optional cell values. It also clarifies the default behavior, making it complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description goes beyond by specifying the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., rows[].values[fieldName]) and explaining the token-saving rationale for include_rows, which adds meaningful semantic detail without repeating schema content.

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 tool's purpose: returning a block's full structure including identity, per-field schema with detailed elements (name, position, value_formula, validation, editability rules), and row keys. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_blocks (which likely only lists block names) and get_cells (which retrieves cell values) by emphasizing the structural/schema role.

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 provides explicit guidance for the include_rows parameter ('Off by default to save tokens — use it when the agent actually needs to inspect data, not when it only needs the shape'), which helps decide when to set that flag. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage. A slight boost would come from naming specific alternatives, but the current guidance is practical.

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