remote_block_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior—output only, excluding command and metadata—which is helpful. Yet it does not mention the `stripAnsi` default behavior or any error/edge cases, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context—it specifies what is returned and the intended use. It lacks mention of error handling or output size limits, but these are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (`blockId` and `stripAnsi` with default). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not explain parameter interactions or format details.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get block output only (for copying)' and explains it returns 'just the output without the command or metadata.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_block_get that likely return complete block data.

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 phrase 'for copying' gives a clear use case, and the note about returning output without metadata implies this is preferred when you need clean, copyable content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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