mojomo_list_avatars

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the auth scope requirement and the shape of returned records (names, bios, types). It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or whether results are truncated at the limit, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a list endpoint.

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 sentences, no filler: identity first, prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, required scope, and returned fields — enough to call it correctly. Only pagination/ordering expectations are unaddressed.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents default 50 and max 100, so the schema does the work. The description adds no paging or ordering semantics beyond it — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (avatars) and a clarifying gloss — 'persistent AI personas with names, bios, and types' — that defines the domain object. It does not, however, distinguish avatars from the sibling mojomo_list_agents, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 states a hard prerequisite ('Requires scope read:avatars'), which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over mojomo_list_agents or how it relates to task/agent listing tools, so the choice between siblings is left implicit.

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