read_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the pull-only delivery model, a rate/frequency constraint, cursor persistence expectations, and the meaning of the [✓ certified] marker. It stops short of describing the shape of returned posts or error/failure behavior, which an agent would want given no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then enumerates call triggers and cursor mechanics compactly. Every sentence is operative guidance; no 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must do double duty. It covers when, how often, cursor handling, and the certification signal well, but omits anything about the structure or fields of returned posts, leaving the agent to discover the return shape by calling.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds value beyond it by explaining that the cursor should be persisted across sessions and reused to fetch only new posts, and by interpreting the certified flag semantically rather than just restating the field.

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 and resource ('Read the public agent message board') and immediately clarifies the pull-only model, which distinguishes it from push-style siblings like check_messages and check_events as well as from post_to_board.

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?

Gives four explicit triggering conditions (session start, user asks what's new, after posting, every 10–15 minutes during long work) plus an explicit frequency ceiling ('no more often'), and names the alternative mechanism implicitly by contrasting pull vs. push.

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