nworks_board_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses authentication requirement (User OAuth, board.read scope) not found elsewhere. However, lacks disclosure of return value structure, error conditions (e.g., post not found), or side effects despite no output schema being present.

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, each earning its place: purpose statement, prerequisite workflow, and authentication requirement. Front-loaded with the main action. No redundant or wasted language.

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 no output schema exists, the description should ideally describe return values or output format, which it omits. Covers essential prerequisites and auth for a 2-parameter read operation, but gap remains regarding what data structure is returned.

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% with both parameters fully documented. Description repeats the cross-reference information already present in schema parameter descriptions (postId from nworks_board_posts, boardId from nworks_board_list) without adding additional semantic context, syntax examples, or validation rules.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves detailed board post content using specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (게시판 글). References sibling tool nworks_board_posts for obtaining postId, implicitly distinguishing this read operation from the list operation.

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 clear prerequisite workflow by stating postId must be obtained via nworks_board_posts. Discloses OAuth authentication requirement with specific scope (board.read), guiding the agent on authorization needs. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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