client_getBlockedContacts

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 behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only action ('Get'), but does not elaborate on return format, potential errors, or whether it only returns contacts blocked by the session's host. While the behavior is straightforward, the description lacks any caveats or details about what the response contains or how it behaves under invalid sessions.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. The [Client] prefix and the active verb make it skimmable and well-structured. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the operation and the scope. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return value (e.g., a list of blocked contacts), but the phrase 'Get all blocked contacts' implicitly covers this. Given the low complexity, the omission is minor.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with 'sessionId' described as a unique identifier with examples. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra context about how sessionId might affect the result.

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 action: 'Get all blocked contacts by host account.' This specifies a unique resource (blocked contacts) and differentiates it from sibling tools like client_getContacts or contact_block. The verb 'Get' is direct, and the scope 'by host account' adds context that distinguishes it from other client getters.

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 such as client_getContacts or contact_block. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. For a simple getter, the purpose implies usage, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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