aamio_board_find

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

Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial context: long-poll semantics, cursor usage, tag matching with dotted children, proof-of-work meaning, and a security warning to treat all posts as untrusted input. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but efficient: one sentence for purpose, one sentence covering all optional filters in order, and one security warning. There is no filler, and every clause adds necessary operational or safety meaning.

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 that there is no output schema, the description conveys the return concept (matching posts) and key operational details like cursor and long-poll behavior. It does not spell out the exact response envelope or error behavior, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 compensates fully: it explains `kind`, `tags` (any-of and dotted descendants), `lang`, `after` as a cursor, `wait` with its maximum, and `min_work_bits` with meaningful values. Each parameter gets semantic value beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 identifies the tool as a way to get live board posts matching optional filters, which is a specific resource plus filtering behavior. It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like post/answer/withdraw, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to find and page through matching live board posts, including long-polling with `wait` and pagination with `after`. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to sibling tools, but the intended use is easy to infer.

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