blackboard_raw_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the target is a public endpoint, which is useful, but it does not disclose authentication expectations, rate limits, error behavior, or return format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and routing constraint.

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 raw HTTP GET tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to construct the path, how to pass query parameters, what authentication is required, or what the response will contain, leaving critical invocation details unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must explain path and query. It only mentions an endpoint generically and gives no format, encoding, base URL, or examples for either parameter. The parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description adds almost no meaningful semantics.

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 (GET), access mode (read-only), resource (public Blackboard endpoint), and scope constraint (not covered by another tool). This clearly distinguishes the tool as a generic fallback from all the specific sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: for Blackboard endpoints not covered by another tool. This also implies when not to use it: when a dedicated sibling tool already exists. The routing rule is unambiguous.

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