list_users_blocked

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the resource; it does not mention pagination, response format, or that it operates on the authenticated user's block list. With annotations covering read-only, the description adds minimal value.

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 short lines. There is no fluff, and it front-loads the core purpose ('Get blocked users') before the endpoint. This is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter list 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?

The description omits a crucial contextual detail: whose blocked users are listed. Without stating 'the current authenticated user's blocked users,' an agent may misinterpret the scope. While the output schema exists, the description does not clarify the relationship to sibling block/unblock tools or the lack of a user ID parameter.

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 tool has zero parameters in the schema (100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get blocked users.' It identifies the core operation and the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_users_by_id_followers or get_users_by_id_following, though the name and endpoint make the resource explicit enough for a 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no examples, and no mention of authentication requirements. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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