Describe Block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral detail that advanced parameters are hidden unless include_advanced is set, and it implies a read-only descriptive operation, but it does not state permissions, read-only status explicitly, or how block type names should be obtained.

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 two tightly focused sentences with zero filler. The main output scope is front-loaded, followed immediately by the include_advanced 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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description explains what kind of information is returned plus the include_advanced conditional behavior. It could be more complete by indicating where valid block_type values come from, but the essential call context is present.

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 description must compensate. It does so reasonably well: 'one block type' clarifies block_type, and the second sentence explicitly explains the effect of include_advanced on the returned 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 a specific verb and resource: it describes ports, parameters, and type variants of one block type. It is distinct enough from generic graph tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_block_settings or search_blocks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_block_settings or search_blocks. The only usage-adjacent detail is the include_advanced flag behavior, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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