Use Blackboard

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, while the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: notices are ephemeral, expire via TTL, and reads only return active non-expired notices. It does not cover overwrite, visibility, or authentication, but it goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose and the second summarizes the supported actions. It earns its place without repeating the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description conveys the core blackboard concept but leaves the per-action call shape (which parameters apply to post vs read) and the read return behavior to inference. The generic schema descriptions make this a noticeable gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning by defining the legal action values ('post' and 'read') and explaining how topic, content, and ttl_seconds factor into a post. It does not clarify project, agent_id, or agent_role beyond their schema descriptions.

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 names a specific resource (shared blackboard), a clear purpose (asynchronous agent coordination), and the supported actions (post and read). It distinguishes itself from the manage_*/query_* sibling tools rather than merely restating its title.

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?

It provides a clear intended usage context: asynchronous agent coordination via a shared blackboard. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the purpose is obvious enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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