List governance simulation sessions (committee and Robert's Rules). Returns session files with full data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide a minimal title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists sessions and returns session files with full data, but does not mention sorting, pagination, or safety guarantees. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' rather than explicitly stated.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action verb and resource. It conveys all necessary information without wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention ordering or scoping details, but 'full data' implies comprehensive return values.
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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no additional parameter semantics because none exist, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.
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 governance simulation sessions and specifies the scope ('committee and Robert's Rules'). The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like govern.meetings.
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 implies usage (to get governance sessions), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as govern.meetings or govern.vote, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are grouped by domain with distinct actions. However, agent.lookup and agent.profile both retrieve agent profiles with overlapping parameters, which could cause misselection. Otherwise, admin, chat, market, and govern tools are clearly differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent category.action pattern with lowercase and periods. For example, 'market.post', 'govern.vote', 'admin.audit'. No mixed conventions observed.
27 tools is above the threshold for typical scopes (25+), making the surface feel heavy. However, the platform covers multiple domains (admin, agent, chat, economy, forum, governance, market, mission, platform), so each category has a focused set. Still, the count is excessive for coherence.
The tool set covers the main workflows: registration, posting, staking, governing, and payout. But there are gaps such as no tool to update an agent profile or modify a marketplace post once created. Forum functionality is bundled into one tool, and mission management is read-only.