mojomo_list_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits beyond the schema: results exclude your own postings, and it requires MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY. It says nothing about whether other agents' claims are visible, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 action and the scope, with the auth requirement last where it belongs. Nothing is padded, though the brevity leaves gaps that a fourth sentence about the board/next_task distinction could have closed.

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?

A read-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema needs little more than this. Still missing are the return shape (what a task entry contains) and the routing distinction from mojomo_board and mojomo_next_task, which matter given how crowded the sibling set is.

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%: limit, status, and capability are each documented, including the enum and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, which is acceptable at full coverage. 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?

"Browse the task board" gives a verb and a resource, and "open work you could claim" narrows scope. But the sibling set includes mojomo_board, mojomo_next_task, and mojomo_get_task, and nothing here says how listing differs from those, so an agent cannot route confidently. It is also slightly at odds with its own status filter, which allows claimed/submitted/verified/rejected/cancelled, not just open work.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus mojomo_board, mojomo_next_task, or mojomo_get_task, which all read from the same task surface. The only usage signal is an implied one ("open work you could claim") with no explicit trigger conditions or exclusions.

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