nworks_board_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds a critical behavioral detail: User OAuth authentication with board.read scope, which is beyond the annotations. It also clarifies it's a retrieve operation with example use cases. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences: purpose, example usage, auth requirement. No filler, front-loaded with the main verb. Excellent information density.

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 simple read-only list tool, it covers purpose, usage context, and authentication. The input schema details parameters (count, cursor). Missing return format details, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema defined, this is acceptable. Could mention pagination explicitly, but schema hints at it.

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% for both parameters (count: '페이지당 항목 수', cursor: '페이지네이션 커서'). The description does not add any additional semantics about parameters, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'NAVER WORKS 게시판을 조회합니다' (retrieve NAVER WORKS boards). It provides concrete example queries ('게시판 뭐 있어?', '공지사항 게시판 찾아줘') that indicate when to use it. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like board_posts, the intent is unambiguous given the name and examples.

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 includes example user queries that trigger this tool, plus an authentication scope note (board.read). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives, but the examples give good guidance on when it applies.

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