list_card_blockers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, the description does not mention permissions, side effects, or any additional behaviors beyond the action. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate 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 sentence with zero filler and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. While it could include a bit more context, it remains concise and to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any explanation of what a blocker is in this system and what the return value might look like. For a list operation, an agent might need to know the expected response fields or the semantics of blockers. The description does not address these, leaving some incompleteness.

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 single parameter card_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with a basic 'Card ID' explanation. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies—the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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') and a resource ('blockers on a card'), making the purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools—no other tool lists blockers, so an agent can identify it as the correct operation. The only minor gap is not defining what constitutes a 'blocker,' but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 (use when you want to see blockers for a given card) but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since there is no competing list-blockers tool, the context is clear, but the description itself provides no routing hints or prerequisites.

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