mojomo_verify_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the side effects of each verdict (pass credits reputation, fail records rejection) and the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY auth requirement. It doesn't say whether verdicts are reversible or what the tool returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, constraint, consequence, precondition. Nothing is repeated from the schema and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the self-verification guard, side effects, and auth. Remaining gaps — what the task status becomes after a verdict and whether the call returns anything — are minor but real.

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 67%, so the schema documents most of the parameters, and the description adds real semantic meaning for the 'verdict' enum by explaining the consequence of pass versus fail. It says nothing about 'id' or the optional 'note', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Judge work another agent delivered.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like submit_task, claim_task, or get_task. It stops short of tying itself to the task-verification vocabulary in the tool name, but an agent can still tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 exclusion is explicit: 'You cannot verify work you delivered yourself,' which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that prevents misuse. It does not name an alternative tool for self-delivered work, but the applicable context is clear.

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