get_blackboard_keys_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important caveat that no live component is required, which affects how the asset is accessed – meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 one-sentence purpose plus a compact return-shape declaration. No filler. The returns line is structured and scannable, though it is somewhat verbose relative to the minimal purpose.

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 description compensates for the absence of an output schema by declaring the exact return shape (blackboard_path, name, parent, keys array with fields, key_count). Combined with read-only annotations and a fully-described single parameter, this is nearly complete for a simple read tool.

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% for the single blackboard_path parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description doesn't add format or syntax details for the path, 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 and resource: reads key definitions from a UBlackboardData asset. The 'no live component needed' clause distinguishes it from get_blackboard_keys and get_blackboard_component, which operate on live components.

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 'no live component needed' note implies asset-based usage versus live-component siblings, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus get_blackboard_keys. The implicit hint is useful but not a strong when-to-use statement.

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