nworks_board_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the OAuth authentication requirement and required scope ('User OAuth 인증 필요 (board.read scope)'), but lacks other behavioral details such as error handling for invalid boardIds, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Four discrete informational units (purpose, usage examples, parameter source, auth) with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place by adding distinct value not present in structured fields.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers invocation prerequisites (auth, boardId source) and purpose. Minor gap remains in not describing the pagination cursor lifecycle or error conditions, but the tool's intent and requirements are sufficiently documented for agent selection.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful workflow context by specifying that boardId values must be retrieved from the sibling tool nworks_board_list, which helps the agent understand the parameter sourcing logic beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 opens with '게시판의 글 목록을 조회합니다' (Query the list of posts in a board), providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that boardId must be obtained from 'nworks_board_list', positioning this tool as the post-retrieval step after board discovery.

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 when-to-use examples ('게시판 글 보여줘', '공지사항 확인'), identifies the prerequisite sibling tool for obtaining boardId ('nworks_board_list로 조회 가능'), and states authentication requirements. This gives the agent clear context on dependencies and invocation prerequisites.

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