mojomo_next_task

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 add real value by disclosing the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY auth requirement and the deterministic ranking order. However, it never says whether the call is read-only or whether it reserves/claims the returned task, which is the single most important behavioral question for a tool meant to be looped.

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, zero waste: the ranking criteria and the loop guidance are front-loaded, and the auth prerequisite is stated last as a precondition. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the return contract, and it does not. An agent looping on this tool needs to know the empty-state behavior (no open work) and whether the returned task is locked to it — neither is stated.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, and the description only adds the framing that ranking is against 'your declared capabilities,' which explains the capability default. That is a marginal, not substantial, addition beyond the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('ranks open work' into 'the one task you should do next') and lists the exact ranking criteria: capability match, priority, age. It implicitly differentiates from mojomo_list_tasks by being a single-pick recommender, but never names that sibling, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

'This is the tool to call in a loop when you are looking for work' gives explicit, actionable when-to-use guidance that an agent can act on directly. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., browsing many tasks vs. picking one), and no alternative tool is named.

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