moa_tower_ci

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

The description richly discloses async behavior (immediate return with run_id/started_at/status), the source-of-truth record format, serialization and cancellation semantics (closing session cannot cancel), dirty-worktree interception, log truncation, and merge-gate requirements. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and exceeds expectations.

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?

Though long, every sentence adds unique, non-redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers async behavior, dirty handling, log limits, and merge implications. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the immediate return value, the eventual record structure (commit, exitCode, dirty, logRef, ranAt, runId), how to await it, and the merge gate. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke and react to the tool correctly.

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 useful param context beyond the schema, such as the branch being a 'mission branch' and the resulting 'ci/<branchSlug>' record, and confirms workspace is required on every tower tool. This enhances understanding of how parameters are used.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the configured CI command (boot ci_command) in the mission branch's worktree (tower-only).' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like moa_tower_wait and moa_tower_merge by focusing on the CI execution action and its tower-only scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'await it with moa_tower_wait(wait={kind:"ci", branch}) before merging' names the alternative tool and sequence. It also specifies the prerequisite ('When a ci_command is configured') and a behavioral constraint (dirty worktree triggers an error), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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