remote_blocks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what a block is but does not disclose aspects of the listing operation such as ordering, pagination, default return size beyond the schema, or whether it is read-only. It also does not mention response format or side effects, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second provides helpful context about blocks. It is appropriately sized with no redundant content, though the second sentence is slightly tangential to the immediate operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and strong schema coverage, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what a block is but does not specify the return format, pagination, or relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the response would have improved completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, sessionId, showCollapsed). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List command blocks for a session.' It identifies the resource (command blocks), the operation (list), and the scope (session). It also adds context by explaining what a block is, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from single-block retrieval or search tools.

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 saying blocks can be searched, tagged, and referenced by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like remote_blocks_search or remote_block_get. There is no direct guidance on when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the context.

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