club_board_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read, but does not explicitly mention lack of side effects, return format, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter, or any auth requirements. It adds little beyond the core purpose.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb and resource, followed by a helpful filter hint. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read operation with three optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies what the tool does and mentions the most prominent filter (channel). It could be improved by noting what the response looks like or that it returns a list of posts, but the schema and sibling context make the tool's basic use fairly clear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the channel filter but does not add extra meaning to the type or limit parameters beyond what the schema already states. It provides no additional clarification on value formats or behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Read') on a clear resource ('the community board'), and the presence of sibling tools like club_board_write, club_board_delete, and club_board_search makes the read intent unmistakable. It also highlights the channel filter, which adds clarity about what the operation does.

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 conveys that this tool is for reading the board and mentions filtering by channel, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as club_board_search or club_board_write, nor does it state when not to use it. Guidance is mostly implied rather than spelled out.

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