moa_tower_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavioral rules: self-send is forbidden, body has a 96KB ceiling, and it returns the message board key. It doesn't cover failure modes or permissions, but the most important constraints are clearly stated.

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 exactly two sentences, starts with the action, and includes only the most essential details. No redundancy or filler.

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 description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose, constraints, and return value, which is adequate for a message-sending tool without an output schema. It would benefit from an explicit note on when to prefer this over the handoff or board write tools, but the core usage context is present.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting the self-send restriction (a cross-parameter constraint between 'to' and 'caller_agent_id') and by recommending message splitting, which goes beyond 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 tool delivers inbox messages and specifies the three recipient types (roster agent, tower, 'all' broadcast). It also mentions key constraints like self-send prohibition and the 96KB body cap, distinguishing it from board and handoff 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 usage for sending inbox messages and gives practical advice to split large content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools like moa_handoff_send or moa_board_write.

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