moa_tower_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the store assigns the round and stamps the branch tip, the tool resolves the tip via git rev-parse (never trusting self-reported commits), the gate only consumes clean rounds, and the merge field has no gate effect. This is exceptional transparency beyond the basic action, covering side effects and gate mechanics.

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 compact and information-dense: four sentences covering purpose, tip resolution, gate logic, and merge advisory. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifies restrictions and critical behavioral details.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core semantics: how rounds are assigned, tip resolution, and gate behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return value or post-submission steps, but in the absence of an output schema this is not strictly required. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly clarifying the 'merge' parameter's advisory nature and its lack of gate effect, which is not fully conveyed in the schema. It also reinforces the 'status' parameter's role in the gate, but most parameter details are already well-documented in the schema.

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: 'Submit a review verdict for an assigned branch', with a specific resource and scope ('reviewers and the tower only'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tower tools by explaining the merge gate logic and advisory merge field, making it unique among the tower tools.

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 this tool: as a reviewer or tower when submitting a review verdict. It provides context about the gate and the merge field's advisory nature, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools like moa_tower_finding or moa_tower_merge are implicitly different, but no direct comparison is made.

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