moa_tip_read

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

The description is minimal but indicates that the tool reads a complete tip and includes context when present. Without annotations, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention error conditions, but 'Read' implies a safe operation.

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?

Single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but conveys the core behavior of returning a complete tip with optional context. However, it lacks details about return shape, error behavior, or prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 50% (workspace has a description, id does not). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the 'id' parameter semantics fully undefined beyond its type.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one complete project Tip') and distinguishes from sibling tools like moa_tip_list by emphasizing completeness and optional context. It is clear what this tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like moa_tip_list or moa_tip_update. The usage is implied by the verb and resource, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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