Get Block Params

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious implementation detail: parameter names are read from a local block catalog file rather than queried live from COM, and names vary by block class. This is meaningful transparency about data source and naming conventions, though it does not cover error behavior.

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 short sentences: a one-line purpose, an implementation rationale, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds information, and the purpose is front-loaded. The size is appropriate for the tool's complexity with no wasted words.

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 an output schema present and the only parameter fully described in the schema, the tool description covers essential usage grounds: what it reads, how it sources names, and what names look like. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly route to set_block_param for writes, but for a single-parameter getter these are minor gaps.

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?

The single required parameter 'block' is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including its source (list_blocks) and a caveat about renaming via COM. The description adds no input-parameter semantics beyond that; its examples concern output parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence 'Прочитать параметры блока' (read block parameters) is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_block_param and get_signal by targeting block parameter names. The catalog examples further clarify what kind of parameters are returned for different block classes.

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 implies usage for reading block parameter names and explains that COM API cannot enumerate them, making this the tool to use for discovering parameter names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read/set contrast with set_block_param is clear enough. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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