blackboard_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description only says it lists keys, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 2 required params and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of strings), pagination, or what constitutes an 'artifact key'. This leaves the agent guessing about the output structure, making it incomplete for effective use.

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%, and the description only maps parameters to 'agent' and 'run' but adds no further meaning like format, allowed values, or constraints. This provides minimal additional value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool lists artifact keys, filtered by agent and run. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'artifact keys', distinguishing it from sibling tools like blackboard_read (reads a single key) and cache_get (different storage).

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 use when you need keys from a specific agent in a run, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like blackboard_read for reading a specific key.

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