list_section_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it declares 'Read-only' and explains what the output reveals (what travels with each heading and body-item indices at section boundaries). This gives an agent safety-critical and behavioral context beyond a bare 'list' statement.

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 compact lines front-load the resource and counts, then give targeted use context, then state safety. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema present, this is complete: it states the resource, the useful counts, the dependent operations, and the read-only nature. The remaining file_path convention is standard across sibling tools and captured in the input schema.

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%, and the description never mentions file_path or its meaning. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, so a low score is warranted.

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 names a concrete resource ('Headings with each section's body-element count, paragraph count, and table count') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by labeling it a planning aid for move_section and insert_document/copy_table. An agent can tell it apart from list_sections or get_outline without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly identifies when to use this tool: as a planning aid before move_section and for insert_document/copy_table to see body-item indices at section boundaries. It does not, however, state when not to use it or compare it to similar listing tools like list_sections or get_outline.

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