moa_tower_wait

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it describes the long-poll blocking nature, the default 25min safety cap with clamping, per-kind payload returns, conditions for satisfaction (e.g., ci must match current tip), and special cases like empty deps being vacuously satisfied. It also states caller eligibility, leaving no behavioral surprises.

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?

Although long, the description is tightly packed with essential information and structured with semicolons and per-kind lists. It front-loads the core contract and then details each wait kind, with no filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 (four wait kinds, nested wait object, no output schema), the description is exhaustive: it covers timing, payloads, error conditions (missing dep doc, closed task scope), caller restrictions, and references sibling tools for clarity. It leaves no meaningful gap for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 includes descriptions for all 4 parameters, but the description adds substantial meaning by explaining how each wait.kind interprets its parameters (e.g., mission waits on status change, deps waits on all merged) and what the resulting payload contains. It clarifies timeoutMs clamping and workspace anchoring, going far beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 the tool as a long-poll wait primitive for the tower domain, with specific verbs 'block until condition holds, then return' and differentiates it from sibling tools by referencing moa_board_wait / moa_wait_turn. It enumerates four distinct wait kinds with precise semantics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 models itself on moa_board_wait / moa_wait_turn, signaling which domain it covers, and provides detailed when-to-use context for each wait kind (e.g., deps is the dependency-driven parallel-dispatch primitive). It also specifies an exclusion: delegators are rejected and may only use moa_tower_send, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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