nworks_board_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that it's a read-only operation. The description adds value by noting the OAuth requirement and the board.read scope, which is additional context beyond annotations. It also mentions a subtle dependencies (posts and boards exist via specific tools). The only gap is not describing the return format or error behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the parameter source is stated, and the auth requirement is mentioned. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and auth requirements. Though there is no output schema, for a simple read operation with a clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of what happens if the post doesn't exist, but that's an error-handling detail not essential for tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does repeat the postId dependency on nworks_board_posts, which adds a slight contextual hint beyond the schema. All parameters are already clear from the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('조회'), resource ('게시판 글의 상세 내용'), and identifies relation to related tools (postId via nworks_board_posts). The description unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like nworks_board_list (list of boards) and nworks_board_posts (list of posts).

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?

Clearly states the required parameters (postId, boardId) and references the sibling tools that provide these IDs, which gives the agent context on how to obtain inputs. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the relation to reference-gathering tools is a form of usage guidance. It could be improved by noting when to use this vs. other board tools, though the reference to nworks_board_posts is helpful.

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