moa_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the exact files written, the logsDir default and override, task closure, and waiter wake-up behavior including board waiters receiving {status:'closed'}. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the core side effects are thoroughly covered.

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?

The description is one long sentence but is dense with necessary information: file list, default and override for logsDir, task closure, and waiter behavior. It avoids fluff, though splitting into two sentences would improve readability.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all major aspects: archive file writes, directory resolution, task closure, and waiter notifications. It omits error cases and idempotency, but these are less critical for a simple completion tool.

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 task_id is described as 'MOA task id'. The tool description adds the detail that task_id is embedded in the output path template, which is a slight enhancement, but it does not significantly deepen understanding 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Write the archive', 'close the task', 'wake remaining waiters'. It clearly defines the tool's role as finalizing a task by archiving files and notifying waiters, distinguishing it from siblings like moa_submit_turn or moa_status.

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 implies this is the completion step for a task, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after all turns are submitted) or mention alternatives. It provides no explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the decision to inference.

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