Get Block Connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does clearly present the operation as a read-only listing, which is the most important behavior. But it does not mention pagination, filtering semantics, ownership scoping (ALL/OWN/EXCLUDE_OWN), response shape, or any authentication or rate-limit implications, which are relevant for a tool with this many parameters.

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 direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is not rated 5 because the extreme brevity leaves out context that the complexity of the schema suggests would be helpful.

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?

This tool has five parameters, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains only the basic purpose, leaving the meaning and intended use of most parameters undocumented. An agent would struggle to correctly use optional parameters like filter and sort or to interpret the return value.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only implies the 'id' parameter via 'a block appears' and says nothing about per, page, sort, or filter. An agent cannot infer the meaning of the enum values (ALL, OWN, EXCLUDE_OWN) or the pagination controls from this description.

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'), a clear resource ('channels'), and the condition that selects them ('where a block appears'). This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like connect_block and inverse-query siblings like get_channel_contents, so an agent can infer what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 intended use case is implied: when you need to find which channels contain a given block, this tool answers that. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and similar lookup tools.

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