remote_block_get

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'Returns the complete command and output', indicating a read operation with no side effects, but it does not detail error behavior, formatting options like the raw flag, or any prerequisites. The schema holds the raw flag info, but the description itself lacks deeper transparency.

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?

Two sentences, clear and efficient. No redundancy.

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 block retrieval tool, the description covers the core purpose and expected output. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could mention error handling or the effect of raw, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds little beyond what is in the schema. It mentions 'full output' but doesn't clarify how raw affects the response or give block ID format beyond the schema examples. Hence 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 clearly states the tool's action: retrieving a specific block by ID with full output. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'block' uniquely identify it among siblings like remote_blocks_list and remote_blocks_search, which are for listing/searching.

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 by ID, saying 'by ID', which suggests you need to know the block ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using remote_blocks_list for enumerating blocks. Thus only minimal guidance.

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