moa_complete

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: writing three archive files, closing the task, and waking remaining waiters. Without annotations, this provides good transparency. However, it could mention required permissions or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that concisely packs all essential actions (write, close, wake) and configuration (default logsDir, override). No filler or redundant words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step file writing, task closure, waiter waking), the description covers the main actions. No output schema exists, but the tool likely returns a success signal; this is not specified but acceptable for such a 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?

The only parameter, task_id, is described minimally in the schema ('MOA task id'). The description adds meaning by specifying it is used to construct the log directory path, providing context beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: writing log files (probe.json, events.jsonl, result.json) to a directory, closing the task, and waking waiters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like moa_init and moa_start_debate, which focus on initialization and debate phases.

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?

Implied usage: the tool is used to finalize a MOA task before transitioning to waiting. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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