moose_instances

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does disclose the primary side effect (remove deletes) and the integration behavior (labels become usable as paths by moose_parse_log and moose_ingest). However, it omits details about persistence, error handling, or whether actions are reversible beyond 'delete.'

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 three sentences long and front-loaded: it states the tool's purpose, enumerates the actions, and explains the downstream benefit. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple registry tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage, and integration with sibling tools. The lack of output format details is acceptable because the list/delete operations have self-evident results, though a brief mention of what 'list' returns would have pushed it to a 5.

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 covers 100% of parameters, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per action (list, add, remove) and clarifying that 'server vs client' is an instance attribute. It also specifies which parameters are required for which actions, though the schema already notes 'required for add/remove' in individual fields.

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 'Cross-cutting instance registry' with specific actions (list, add, remove) and explains its role in managing DCS installs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on instance registration rather than log parsing or mission validation.

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 explicitly states how to use the tool: 'Use action=list to see known instances, action=add to register one, action=remove to delete.' It also explains the benefit of registering an instance (other tools can use the label as a path), but stops short of explicitly describing when not to use it or naming alternatives.

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