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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool does NOT execute the selected capability and instead returns quote/execution metadata, which is the most important behavioral trait for an agent to know. It could add more detail about side effects or prerequisites, but the core non-execution behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 a single dense sentence with no redundant filler, and the key action ('Use Hermes...') is front-loaded. It earns its place, though a slightly clearer separation between the planning action and the non-execution guarantee could improve readability.

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 output schema likely documents the return format, so the description does not need to explain that. However, the tool exists in a large sibling family, and the description omits parameter semantics for 'files' and provides no guidance on choosing among related planning/quote tools, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'files' parameter at all. The 'task' parameter is only weakly implied by the phrase 'prepare normalized input,' but no concrete semantics, expected structure, or relationship between parameters is provided.

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 states a specific action—using Hermes to select a Swarme capability, normalize input, and return quote/execution metadata—while explicitly noting it does not run the tool. This clearly distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like swarme_agent_run and swarme_tool_run.

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 the tool should be used when a plan or quote is needed rather than direct execution, especially with the phrase 'without running the tool.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide concrete when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the routing decision somewhat to inference.

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