moa_tower_boot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and acquits itself well. It discloses repo validation, board writes, roster registration, idempotency error behavior, directory layout (no .tower/, sibling worktrees), and delegator access restrictions. These are significant contextual behaviors beyond a simple 'boot' statement.

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 each sentence contributes unique information: lifecycle, constraints, directory layout, delegation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with supporting details. Slightly long but no redundancy.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers validation, side effects, lifecycle, directory layout, and parameter restrictions. It doesn't mention return values or success behavior, but that is not required given no output schema. A brief mention of prerequisites like moa_init might improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for tower_agent_id (must be a spawned subagent, 'main' rejected) and delegator_agent_id (only moa_tower_send). It also clarifies workspace/repo_root validation. However, it does not mention ci_command or mode, leaving schema descriptions to carry those.

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 verb 'Boot' and resource 'tower workspace for a git repository', then enumerates specific actions: validates repo, writes state docs, registers roster entry. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moa_tower_plan or moa_tower_merge.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context: 'boot first, then let the orchestrator drive plan/spawn/merge itself'. It also gives when-not: repeated boot errors, 'main' is rejected, and mentions teardown clears the namespace for re-boot. This effectively guides tool selection and sequencing.

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