rhino_block_list

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds useful scope ('every block definition') and output semantics (per-definition counts). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as document targeting or performance implications, though the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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, focused sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the scope ('every'), the resource ('block definition'), and the output ('per-definition object + instance count').

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 read-only list operation with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It only lacks explicit routing guidance among the block-related sibling tools, which is a usage gap rather than a critical invocation gap.

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 only parameter, doc_id, is documented in the schema with a default of 'active' and an explanation, so the tool description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the semantic burden; this is an acceptable baseline.

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') and resource ('every block definition') and even specifies the output granularity: per-definition object and instance count. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rhino_list_blocks or rhino_block_instance_count.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many block-related siblings such as rhino_list_blocks, rhino_block_manager, or rhino_block_instance_count. An agent gets no help choosing among alternatives.

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