get_blackboard_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by spelling out the return structure (keys, entries, key_count), which compensates for the absent output schema, but discloses no auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior beyond that.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Returns block is compact and useful given the missing output schema. No filler text, though the bracketed return type notation is slightly dense.

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 low-complexity read tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece by documenting the return shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only gap being explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the other blackboard read tools.

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 100% and the schema itself already notes 'use blackboard_path for asset-based read', so the parameters are well documented structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the actor_name vs. blackboard_path distinction, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (blackboard data), and the phrase 'all key-value pairs and complete data' implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_blackboard_keys and get_blackboard_value. However it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route the agent among the many blackboard siblings (get_blackboard_keys, get_blackboard_keys_asset, get_blackboard_component, get_blackboard_value). 'Complete data' hints it is the full dump, but no condition or alternative is stated.

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