moa_tower_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the finding is stored under a random UUID key and routed by the tower. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what the response contains beyond the storage key.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause adds value: the categories, the audience, the usage rule, and the storage behavior.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain the return value or postconditions. It explains the storage mechanism and routing, but not what the caller receives or any prerequisites. Given the richness of the schema, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all nine parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents.

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 action ('File a structured finding') and lists the four categories (bug | improve | vuln | idea). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing that workers use it for notable items outside their mission scope, rather than for direct fixes.

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 explicitly states when to use it: for anything notable outside the worker's mission scope, and when not: instead of fixing it directly. It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for agents to differentiate.

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