get_interface_block

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the nature of the returned data (properties with allowed values) and special handling for PLLs (added calculated frequencies). This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect from the tool without contradicting 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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and the format of returned values; the second adds a specific PLL enhancement. It is front-loaded with the most important information and uses precise terminology.

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 covers the tool's purpose and usage context well, but it fails to explain the parameters, especially block_type, which is optional and ambiguous. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent needs to provide and what the response structure looks like. The absence of parameter guidance makes it incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation, but it does not mention any parameter names or their roles. The optional block_type parameter is entirely unexplained, and even name and project are not explicitly described. The description only refers to 'one Interface Designer instance' without connecting it to the parameters.

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: retrieving all properties of one Interface Designer instance, including allowed value formats (choice lists, ranges, free-form). It also adds specific detail about PLLs (calculated VCO/output frequencies and reference clock source). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_interface_design or calc_pll by its focus on property enumeration.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before edit_interface to obtain exact property names, which is a clear usage directive. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like check_interface or calc_pll, so exclusions are missing.

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