moa_tower_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing a significant side-effect: 'Reading status also re-verifies every roster entry against the status fold (lazy re-verify, B2-9) and persists the verdicts.' This alerts the agent that even a read operation can cause writes, which is critical for a status tool.

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 dense but well-structured: a clear opening label, a list of dashboard sections, then the side-effect warning. Every listed item adds information relevant to a status dashboard, so the length is justified and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the responsibility of explaining return content. It lists all major sections (mission table, roster with specific columns, review-gate state, CI summary, inbox count, activity log) and the read side-effect. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect, though it stops short of describing exact formats or edge cases.

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% and both parameters (workspace, caller_agent_id) already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The main description adds only indirect context (e.g., 'the caller's inbox count' implies caller_agent_id), which does not exceed the baseline value provided by 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 identifies this as a 'shared tower dashboard' and enumerates the specific resources it covers (mission table, roster, review-gate state, CI summary, inbox count, activity log). This is a specific read/resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like moa_tower_ci or moa_status_agents by the breadth of content.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'dashboard' implies an overview use case, but there is no statement like 'use this for overall status, use moa_tower_ci for CI details' or any exclusions.

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