scratchpad_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the not_found/expired response format and the free/unauthenticated access. It does not specify the success return structure, but for a simple read this is acceptable. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: cost, purpose, error behavior, and parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the free note and purpose. No redundancy. Could be tightened slightly, but it's well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, key format, error case, and cost. It does not mention locking or concurrency, but those are more relevant to writes (covered by scratchpad_lock/unlock). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit not_found response, though the success format is vague. Overall sufficient.

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. It defines 'key' as a 'State key or hierarchical path' and provides an example ('swarm/task-1/status'), which is far richer than the schema's bare 'Key'. This gives the agent the necessary semantics to construct valid inputs.

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 the tool's function: 'Retrieves a stored value, task result, or swarm state from the shared agent blackboard.' It uses a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (blackboard), and the sibling tools (scratchpad_set, scratchpad_lock, scratchpad_unlock) are immediately distinguishable by name. The hierarchical path example adds precision.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Reads are 100% free and unauthenticated, enabling subagents to continuously poll state without burning tokens or fees.' This tells the agent when this tool is ideal (polling) and why (cost). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like scratchpad_set for writes, leaving some routing to inference. Still, the context is strong enough for a 4.

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