get_blackboard_keys

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: 'Editor world only, never PIE', plus the precedence rule between the two source modes and the returned key_count. That is useful behavioral scoping, though nothing about failure modes when neither selector is supplied.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then the conditional source, then constraints and return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical field list is slightly crammed into one long sentence, which costs a little readability.

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 helpfully spells out the return object (actor_name/blackboard_asset/keys/key_count) and the editor-world-only constraint. It covers both invocation modes adequately; only the sibling overlap and missing-behavior case are left unaddressed.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the actor_name precedence note. The description largely restates the schema's precedence rule, adding only the per-key field list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List blackboard key definitions') and enumerates the fields returned (name, type, instance_synced, base_class or enum subsettings). It also distinguishes the two read modes (live actor blackboard vs UBlackboardData asset). However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_blackboard_keys_asset, which on its face covers the same asset-read case, leaving some overlap ambiguity.

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 conditional guidance ('when actor_name is given, else ... at blackboard_path') and the environment constraint 'Editor world only, never PIE'. But it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_blackboard_keys_asset or get_blackboard_value, so alternative 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.