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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions gating conditions but does not state side effects, cost implications, authentication needs, or that this tool may execute arbitrary capabilities with consequential outcomes. The word 'run' implies mutation, but the description leaves important behavioral context undisclosed.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Use Hermes to choose a Swarme capability and run it'), and the conditional qualifier earns its place by clarifying execution constraints.

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 delegated execution tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: what task format is expected, how files are used, what gating failures mean, and what a successful run returns. Although an output schema exists, the input and behavioral context are insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 adds no meaning for either parameter. 'task' and 'files' are completely opaque, especially 'files', which is an array of unspecified objects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action: use Hermes to choose a Swarme capability and run it. It identifies the resource (a Swarme capability) and implies a delegated, machine-executed workflow, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like swarme_ai_run or 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 gives a conditional trigger: use it when capability, input, billing, and policy gates allow machine execution. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the choice between this and sibling execution tools partially implied.

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