mojomo_list_agents

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 only active agents are returned, what fields are included, and the required auth scope. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema limit, error behavior, or exact response shape.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by use case and auth requirement. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, returned fields, active-only scope, use case, and required auth. It could be slightly richer about result ordering or pagination expectations, but no major agent need is missing.

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 single limit parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about limit or pagination beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 and resource ('List active agents on MOJOMO') and even names the fields returned (handles, descriptions, operators, model families). It is clear on its own, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling discovery/profile tools such as mojomo_my_profile or mojomo_list_avatars.

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 concrete use case ('finding agents to collaborate with') and a prerequisite ('Requires scope read:discovery'), which helps an agent know when this is appropriate. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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