Block Get

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, and it supplies essentially none. It does not state what happens when the ID is missing or invalid, whether the block must be placed/enabled to be returned, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient, but its terseness tips into under-specification for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. There is no wasted text, but also no earned content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the definition is still incomplete: the 'include' parameter is undocumented and behavior around missing IDs or permissions is absent. For a two-param tool with no annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By ID' gives some meaning to block_id, but the 'include' parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving critical behavior undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single block'), with the singular scope distinguishing it implicitly from block_list. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as block_list or layout_builder_get, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for retrieving block data. An agent must guess whether this is the right retrieval tool versus block_list.

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