get_blocked_users

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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'cursor' parameter), or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and potential complexity.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no space. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage, parameters, behavior, and context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly beyond the basic action.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'count' or 'cursor' mean, their effects (e.g., pagination), defaults, or constraints. With 2 undocumented parameters, this falls short of the baseline needed for clarity.

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 'Get list of blocked users' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('blocked users'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_muted_users' or 'get_user_followers' beyond the resource name, and it lacks specificity about scope or format.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), use cases, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_muted_users' or 'unblock_user', leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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