moa_board_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses live read semantics, the absence of deleted keys, the filtering logic, and result ordering/cap. This provides substantial behavioral transparency for a read operation, though it doesn't describe the entry shape or error conditions.

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 three crisp sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then uses a logical structure to explain filtering modes and output ordering. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the 5-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description covers core behavior, filtering modes, and limit semantics. It does not specify the structure of returned entries or behavior when both key and tag are provided, but overall it is reasonably complete for a read tool.

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 60%, but the description adds essential meaning to the undocumented 'key' and 'tag' parameters by explaining how they filter results. It also reiterates the limit behavior, providing value beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool as reading live entries from the blackboard, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like moa_board_write, moa_board_delete, and moa_board_list by describing its read/filter behavior and noting that deleted keys never appear.

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 clearly explains the three usage modes (with key, with tag, with neither) and the ordering/limit behavior, giving strong context on when to use each mode. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are clearly implied.

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