Doco Get Blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about stable block_id and version, which is helpful. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether full content is included, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, dense line that front-loads the core behavior and the key parameter (recursive). No wasted words; the Chinese phrasing is compact and clear.

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 block-reading tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the toggle. It could mention whether it's suitable for large documents or whether blocks include content text, but the output schema likely covers return values. It's structurally complete and adequate for the agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (recursive and document_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the concept of top-level versus all blocks, which maps to the recursive parameter, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('按块读取' / read by blocks), names the resource (文档块 / document blocks), and clarifies behavior (返回顶层或全部块 with stable block_id and version). It clearly distinguishes itself from doco_get_document, doco_read, doco_traverse, and doco_get_tree because it emphasizes block-level access and stable IDs.

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 specifies when to use it: to read blocks, with a clear toggle for top-level vs recursive. It doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the sibling list and the '按块' framing imply it's for block retrieval, not for document metadata or search. The missing exclusions are a minor gap.

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