Find Blockers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds 'active' (implying a status filter) and the project/node scoping, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior for transitive blockers (though that is covered by the include_transitive parameter).

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and scope with no wasted words. It earns a 5 for conciseness.

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 simple read-only list tool with all-optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It states the core behavior (list active blockers) and the optional scoping (project-wide or node-specific). The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's output is self-evident from the description, though a bit more detail about return structure would make it a 5.

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 100%, so all three parameters (node_id, project, include_transitive) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('active blockers and the nodes they block') and specifies the scope ('project-wide or for a specific node'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like find_blocked_tasks by focusing on blockers rather than blocked tasks.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list active blockers, optionally filtered by node or project. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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