swebsy_list_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists catalog data and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say it is non-destructive or describe any side effects. For a simple read-only list tool, the lack of side effects is fairly obvious, but the description could be more explicit about the absence of mutations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('pre-built block catalog'), then adds the output detail ('ids + labels') and the consumer context ('available to insert_block'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it will get (ids + labels) and why it matters (for insert_block). It does not specify the exact format of the list (e.g., array vs. object) or whether labels are human-readable, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description adds meaning by specifying what the output contains (ids + labels) and its purpose (available to insert_block). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it by clarifying the return value's role.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('pre-built block catalog'), and the exact output content ('ids + labels'). It also names the downstream consumer ('insert_block'), which distinguishes it from other list tools like swebsy_list_pages or swebsy_list_templates. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 when to use this tool: before calling insert_block, to discover available block ids and labels. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the reference to insert_block provides clear contextual guidance. Since there are no sibling tools that list blocks, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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