block_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (blocking requests) and implies a post-block content check via core_content_selector, but it doesn't disclose the return format, how success/failure is signaled, or whether the block is temporary and scoped to the test. The description adds some behavioral context but not enough for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the second sentence provides a practical use case. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description explains the 'why' and gives a clear scenario, but it doesn't specify what the tool returns or how it communicates success/failure after blocking requests. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to describe execution outcomes. However, the schema covers parameter constraints well, and the tool's purpose is well-articulated, so it's adequate but incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., simulating third-party outages) but doesn't explain parameter interactions or nuances beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's own descriptions, including examples for block_patterns, are already detailed, so the description adds marginal value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Blocks') and resource ('requests to specified URL patterns'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on selectively blocking third-party resources like analytics/CDNs. It also provides a concrete use-case scenario, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'useful for simulating third-party outages' and gives a concrete question it can answer. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the sibling chaos tools.

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