moa_tower_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: mission id/branch/worktree creation, pairwise disjoint build scopes, dependency validation against known ids, and survey missions being read-only with no scope reservation. It could add more on return format and reversibility, but covers key 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every clause earns its place: id-prefix rationale, disjoint scope constraint, survey nuance, and the required combo. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

Given the nested input schema and no output schema, the description explains what the tool does (creates missions with ids/branches/worktrees) and imposes necessary constraints. It stops short of describing the return value, which would be helpful, but overall provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all top-level parameters (context reports 67% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: the required combo, per-mission requirements (title + non-empty scope), optional fields, disjoint scope constraint, and the id-prefix collision avoidance rationale.

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 opens with 'Split a tower goal into missions (tower-only)' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by detailing that each mission gets an id (M<n>), a branch (feat/M<n>-<slug>), and a worktree slot (wt-<n>).

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 implies when to use the tool (when splitting a tower goal into missions) and provides the 'Required combo' for invocation. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the tower-only scoping and sibling context make the primary use case clear.

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