get_block_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, informing the agent this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no new behavioral specifics beyond the name. Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and follows a standard structure. While it could benefit from more detail, it avoids verbosity.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description fails to explain what the returned metadata includes (e.g., content, properties, children). This omission leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's result, making it 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?

Schema coverage of the single parameter is 100%, with the description matching the schema's purpose. The description does not add additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '获取块的元数据' (get block metadata), specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_block_attrs, get_block_breadcrumb, or get_block_kramdown, which may also relate to block metadata. The lack of distinction slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or which sibling tools to consider instead. This omission leaves the agent without decision support.

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