add_get_blackboard_value_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries disclosure alone and does say the effect is adding a Get-Blackboard-Value node to a blueprint. It doesn't mention side effects such as graph modification, whether a blackboard key must already exist, or required permissions, so behavior is only partially transparent.

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 front-loaded and organized into summary, args, KB reference, and example, with little wasted text. The 'Ch.10:' tag adds minor noise, but the structured sections keep it scannable.

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 node-adding tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, each parameter, allowed types, and a concrete example. It does not discuss prerequisites like the blackboard key existing or where the node lands in the graph, but these are minor given the example and KB pointer.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains blueprint_name scope (BT Task or AI Controller), key_name semantics, enumerates all valid value_type options, and flags node_position as optional with coordinate format. This is more than the schema itself provides.

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 opening sentence names the exact node being added, 'Get Blackboard Value as [Type]', and the description clarifies it reads data from the Blackboard. This semantically separates it from sibling tools like set_blackboard_value and add_clear_blackboard_value_node, whose write/clear intent is opposite.

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?

States a clear context—BT Tasks that need to read from the Blackboard—and gives an example targeting a specific node. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming set/clear alternatives.

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