nworks_board_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical auth requirements ('User OAuth 인증 필요', 'board.read scope') which is valuable behavioral context. However, lacks details on pagination behavior, return structure, or error cases despite being a paginated list operation.

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?

Three sentences total: purpose statement, usage examples, and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.

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?

Covers essential usage pattern and authentication, but lacks description of return values (no output schema exists to compensate). For a paginated list tool with OAuth requirements, the description is adequate but has gaps regarding output structure and pagination behavior.

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% (count and cursor are well-documented in schema). Description adds no additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 is appropriate per rubric when schema coverage is high and no param elaboration is needed in description.

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?

Description states specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieve/query) and resource 'NAVER WORKS 게시판 목록' (board list). Example queries ('게시판 뭐 있어?', '공지사항 게시판 찾아줘') clearly distinguish this listing function from sibling tools like nworks_board_read or nworks_board_create.

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?

Provides explicit example user requests for when to use the tool ('게시판 뭐 있어?', '공지사항 게시판 찾아줘'). However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct references to sibling alternatives (e.g., nworks_board_read for specific board details).

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