list_blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about derived_fields rejecting writes and the orientation purpose, without contradicting annotations. It doesn't describe side effects, but annotations suffice; the added detail about returned data is a bonus.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and returns a clear structure of paragraphs, but includes tangential information about next_block_start and create_block that isn't directly needed for using list_blocks. This slightly dilutes conciseness, though each sentence carries some value.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output: per block it returns ref name, fields, key_field, and derived_fields. It also points to describe_block for further details, making the tool self-contained for an agent to understand its output and usage.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of meaning. It fully explains the sheet parameter: omitting it scans the whole workbook, passing it restricts to one sheet. This provides complete semantic clarity beyond the 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 description clearly states the tool lists every sheet, every block, and the fields per block, with specific details about returned metadata (ref name, fields, key_field, derived_fields). It distinguishes itself from describe_block by positioning itself as a high-level orientation tool, so purpose 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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: use describe_block when needing field rules or row keys/values, and explains sheet parameter behavior (omit for whole workbook, pass for single sheet). This clearly differentiates usage from alternatives and gives contextual direction.

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