board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts: results are ordered newest first and are scoped to notes from *other* DSH sessions (implying the caller's own notes are excluded). It does not say anything about the note structure, whether posting requires announce first, or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most important scoping fact (which notes) plus ordering are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-only listing tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, source, and ordering adequately. The only gap is that the shape/content of a returned note is left entirely implicit.

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%, with both `limit` (default 20) and `since_minutes` fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (notes other DSH sessions posted) and names the sibling tool `announce` that produces the content, which cleanly separates it from the write side. The 'newest first' ordering also pins down what the result looks like. An agent can tell this is the announcement-reading tool without opening the schema.

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 explains what the tool reads but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus `peers`, `overlaps`, `session_detail`, or `whoami`. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; an agent must infer that this is the bulletin-board counterpart to `announce`.

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