Query 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 states the tool returns 'a list of matching block summaries,' which is helpful context about output format. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though 'limit' parameter is in schema), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and its filtering capabilities, the second states the return type and primary use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the core filtering logic and use case but doesn't cover all parameters or provide details about the 'block summaries' structure. Given the complexity, more comprehensive documentation would be beneficial.

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 description lists specific filter criteria ('block type, indent level, list type, checked state, or text content'), which maps to 5 of the 10 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'indent' vs 'indent_gte/lte' parameters or mention 'graph_id' and 'document_id' requirements.

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 specific action ('Search for blocks matching specific criteria') and resource ('blocks'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_block' (single block retrieval) or 'read_document' (full document reading). It explicitly mentions the purpose is to 'find blocks without reading the entire document,' which differentiates it from document-level operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to find blocks without reading the entire document') and implies when not to use it (for reading entire documents or retrieving single blocks). It distinguishes this search-focused tool from alternatives like 'get_block' (for single blocks) and 'read_document' (for full documents).

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