nworks_board_posts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of OAuth and board.read scope adds value regarding auth requirements. However, it does not elaborate on pagination specifics like cursor format, which is beyond annotations but important for behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and example queries. It efficiently states auth requirements and boardId resolution in one sentence. Could be slightly more structured, but it is mostly efficient.

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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and auth. It lacks explicit note on cursor pagination, but the schema covers it. Overall sufficient for successful invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra value, just reiterating boardId is from nworks_board_list. Since schema coverage is full, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists board posts, with specific example queries and a mention of the related boardId lookup. It is distinguished from siblings like nworks_board_read by focusing on list retrieval, and the boardId reference to nworks_board_list adds clarity.

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 specifies when to use it (e.g., '게시판 글 보여줘', '공지사항 확인') and notes boardId can be obtained via nworks_board_list. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it among many list tools.

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