block_raw_decoded_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the output is a 'full decoded (verbose) representation' with 'extensive details', which is adequate but lacks specifics on rate limits, authentication, or the exact structure of the response. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. Every piece of information 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the context of sibling tools, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what input it expects. It omits potential caveats (e.g., verbosity, performance for large blocks) but is largely complete for an agent to decide to use it.

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 one parameter 'identifier' with 0% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining that 'identifier' can be a block hash or height, which the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not specify formatting requirements (e.g., hex string for hash, integer for height), leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full decoded (verbose) representation of a specific Bitcoin block', and the identification method 'by its hash or height'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like block_raw_hex_get or block_raw_summary_get by emphasizing 'extensive details'.

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 gives a general indication of when to use (when extensive details are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like block_get, block_raw_prevout_get, or block_raw_summary_get. This lack of comparative guidance forces the agent to guess.

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