ue_blackboard_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists keys of an existing blackboard, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error handling, or prerequisites beyond existence. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 one sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks details that would make it fully self-contained, such as what exactly is returned (key names vs values) or any prerequisites beyond existing blackboard. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would be helpful.

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?

The schema has one parameter, blackboard_path, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter's format or meaning, relying solely on the parameter name. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 description uses a specific verb 'Elenca' (lists) and a clear resource 'chiavi di un Blackboard Data esistente' (keys of an existing Blackboard Data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_blackboard_add_key (adds a key) and ue_create_blackboard (creates a blackboard).

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 implies usage for inspecting an existing blackboard's keys but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.

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