Get Block Details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself; it does state that this is a read operation and that it returns block metadata plus connected channels. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or how 'complete metadata' is represented, leaving some uncertainty about side effects and outputs.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action and resource and every word adds value.

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 tool is simple with one integer parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is responsible for communicating return shape and operational context. It gives a basic map (metadata plus connected channels) but does not specify how channels appear, whether there are limits, or what happens for invalid ids.

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 needs to clarify the lone id parameter. It only says 'a block', leaving the agent to infer that id is the block identifier and does not describe valid values or edge cases.

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 clear action ('Read') and names the resource ('complete metadata for a block plus connected channels'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_block_connections or get_channel_contents. However, 'complete metadata' is somewhat open-ended, so it does not fully specify the exact contents of the response.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list includes related tools such as get_block_connections, but the description does not state criteria, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool.

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