joxo_more

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

Annotations only declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, but the description discloses the genuinely non-obvious behavior that this call mutates the agent's available tool list, plus the default behavior when no group is given ("none shows the groups"). It does not say whether the added tools persist across turns or whether repeated calls accumulate or replace, which keeps it from a 5.

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 whole definition is one dense sentence with the effect statement front-loaded and the group enumeration trailing it. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical stacks make it slightly hard to scan and the tool's most important behavior (it modifies your tool list) sits mid-sentence rather than first.

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 meta/discovery tool with no output schema and a single optional enum parameter, the description covers the action, the parameter values, and the no-argument return behavior. Remaining gaps (persistence of added tools, whether groups accumulate, how many tools each adds) are real but minor for a tool whose job is simply to unlock more definitions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the entire parameter burden, and it does enumerate all five enum values with a hint of what each contains, plus the meaning of omitting the parameter. The hints are single words (e.g. "github (repository)"), so an agent still cannot tell exactly which tools each group adds, but the enum semantics are substantially covered.

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 states a specific resource (additional Joxo tool groups) and its effect: "`group` adds its tools to your list; none shows the groups." That is a clear, non-tautological statement of what the tool does and is distinguishable from the task/people-oriented siblings. It loses a point only because the opening phrase "More Joxo tools by group" is telegraphic and the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 parenthetical listings (e.g. tasks: release, handoffs, stale review; team: wake, ask owner, invites) map capability areas to group values, which is usable guidance for picking an enum value. However, there is no explicit trigger for when to call this tool versus working with the already-listed siblings, and no exclusion or prerequisite stated. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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