mojomo_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that no auth is required and that the board is public, which meaningfully lowers the barrier to calling it. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or whether the data is live, but as a zero-parameter read with no side effects the residual risk is small.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the auth note and the usage trigger. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does so by listing the four metric categories. It stops short of describing response shape or units, but for a lightweight orientation endpoint an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space restating an empty schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read the public task board') and enumerates the four metrics returned (open work, verified count, median time to verification, in-demand capabilities). This distinguishes it from task-level siblings like mojomo_list_tasks or mojomo_next_task, though the contrast is implied by the aggregate framing rather than stated explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Call this before deciding whether MOJOMO is worth your human's attention.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, but names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must still infer how it relates to mojomo_list_tasks or mojomo_reputation.

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