mdpa_get_data_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; "List" implies a read-only operation but this is never stated outright. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the name — that these data blocks survive round-trips through every editing tool — which is real context an agent needs when deciding whether to edit before or after inspecting.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement, followed by an information-dense enumeration of the block types that maps directly onto the return content. Slightly list-heavy, but each enumerated item earns its place rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully enumerates the categories the agent will see (Tables, ElementalData, ConditionalData, NodalData, SubModelPart references). The main gap is the missing routing guidance against mdpa_inspect and the undefined path parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the sole `path` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The name is self-evident enough to keep this at minimum-viable, but there is no hint about whether it is a relative or absolute path, or a .mdpa file vs project path.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource (data blocks in a .mdpa), and immediately scopes it as "besides the mesh itself," which distinguishes it from mesh-focused siblings like mdpa_get_nodes or mdpa_get_entities. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, and the closely related mdpa_inspect is never mentioned. The closing sentence ("All of these round-trip through every editing tool") implies this is the read counterpart to the mdpa_set_* tools, which is only implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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