moa_status_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the data sources, output ordering, default cap, and the possible 'source' values ('local', 'remote', 'local-empty'), emphasizing that the state is 'always explicit, never silently stale'. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't mention potential errors or side effects.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each clause adds value (data sources, ordering, cap, source values). It is longer than the high example but still efficient and free of fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value reasonably well: aggregate counts, per-agent snapshots ordered by lastSeen, and the cap. It also covers the edge case of 'local-empty'. It could be more explicit about the exact fields in per-agent snapshots, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by specifying the default limit (100) and that sessionId is used for filtering, which goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning live agent/session status with a specific source ('folded from the CLI homes' session trees... plus the owning Bus's /status snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like moa_status and moa_tower_status by focusing on agents/sessions and providing detailed output semantics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve live agent/session status) and gives usage instructions ('pass limit or sessionId to filter'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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