search_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns exact typed signatures, orders results newest-first, and warns about retired revisions and unlicensed-toolkit-like rejection. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, side effects, or error handling, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 no redundancy. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and the warning about retired revisions is delivered concisely as an important caveat. Every sentence 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 (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, ordering, and a key pitfall. However, it omits details on result format/limit behavior and does not clarify how the 'limit' parameter affects results. For a search tool this is adequate but not fully complete, especially given the low schema coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only installRoot has a description). The description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters; while 'search the block signatures' implies 'query' is the search term, 'limit' is left entirely unexplained. Since the schema is sparse, the description fails to compensate, offering only marginal clarification for the primary parameter.

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 searches for block signatures in installed nTop binaries and returns the exact typed signature strings that add_block needs. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling add_block by explaining it provides the signatures that add_block consumes. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context by stating the signatures are needed by add_block, and it provides critical guidance about preferring the highest version and distrusting unversioned forms due to nTop's rejection of retired revisions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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