get_blackboard_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: editor-world-only restriction, the PIE caveat about pawns not being auto-possessed, and the resolution order (AIController blackboard, else one on the actor, first match). It does not discuss failure modes when no component is found, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then constraints, then the alternative, then the return shape; each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but well-structured and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the full return shape (actor_name, component_name, has_valid_asset, num_keys, blackboard_asset, keys list). Combined with the editor-world/PIE constraint and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 is 100% and the single actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pawn/AIController/actor resolution. The description largely restates that resolution logic rather than adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the UBlackboardComponent of an editor-world actor), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly names the sibling it is not for asset keys (get_blackboard_keys_asset). An agent can distinguish it from related blackboard tools 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?

Gives explicit when-not ('Editor world only, never PIE') plus a concrete alternative routing rule ('for asset keys use get_blackboard_keys_asset'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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