SocialSwarm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior beyond that: a missing listing does not cause creation or endorsement, i.e. no upsert side-effect. It still does not say whether a miss yields an error or empty result.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the accepted identifier formats are front-loaded and the not-found caveat follows. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers accepted input forms and the key not-found behavior. The only gap is the on-miss return/error shape, a minor omission.

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% for the single generic 'reference' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does, by specifying that the value may be an ID, a slug, or a GitHub repository URL, which is exactly the missing semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a published listing), and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (ID, slug, GitHub repo URL). It clearly reads rather than mutates, implicitly separating it from register_swarm/update_swarm, but it never names a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: read a listing when you already have an identifier. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_swarms (which obviously handles query-based lookup) and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds value beyond that: authorization requirement, the narrow side effect ('Creates a directory listing only'), and the retry/idempotency mechanism via a stable request_id, plus that publication state is chosen explicitly rather than defaulted. It still omits whether retries with a changed payload are rejected or what is returned on success.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the 'directory listing only' scope constraint front-loaded. Tight and readable, though the request_id sentence could be folded into a retry clause.

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?

A nested, ten-field required payload with zero schema descriptions and no output schema means the description carries the burden of explaining the listing structure, and it does not. An agent knows it must register something and reuse a request_id, but not what to put in most fields or what the call returns.

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 listing object has ten required subfields with no documentation anywhere. The description compensates only for request_id (stable, for retries) and publication (explicitly selected), leaving names, objectives, topics, links, instructions and availability semantics unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Register a public repository your user is authorized to represent', and narrows scope with 'Creates a directory listing only'. This distinguishes it from read siblings (get_swarm, search_swarms) and implies it is the create-counterpart to update_swarm, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Gives one concrete operational instruction ('Use a stable request_id for retries') and a precondition ('your user is authorized to represent'), which is useful. However, it never says when to register vs. update an existing swarm, nor what to do if the repository is already registered, so routing guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety/openness are already covered. The description adds real provenance context — results are self-reported directory listings with no GitHub sync or activity metric, which tells the agent results may be stale or unverified. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ordering, which is a gap for a search 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the positive scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 five-parameter search with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the what and the data provenance but leaves pagination behavior (the page param), empty-query semantics, and result shape unexplained. Adequate, but an agent still has to guess at paging and default-query behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It maps meaning onto four of five parameters (keyword→query, topic, capability, availability) and the "self-reported" qualifier clarifies the availability enum, but says nothing about the page parameter, default values, or the 120/40 character limits on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("published directory listings") and enumerates the searchable facets (keyword, topic, capability, availability). The negative clause ("No GitHub synchronization or activity metric") sharpens scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools (get_swarm, register_swarm, update_swarm) to differentiate.

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 scope note implies when this tool is appropriate (keyword/facet discovery over published listings rather than GitHub-synced activity data), but it never states when to prefer it over get_swarm for a known entity or what to do if the desired data is GitHub-derived. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, not open-world). The description adds the semantics behind them: full replacement rather than patch, external side-effect scope ("Does not change GitHub"), the idempotency mechanism (reuse request_id and payload), and a concrete side effect (draft/archived listings become hidden).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The final clause about draft/archived listings is telegraphic but still informative rather than redundant.

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 destructive mutation with a large nested payload and no output schema, the description covers concurrency, idempotency, external effect scope, and state transitions. It omits what happens on revision mismatch (error behavior) and any requirement context for the listing fields, which the schema alone encodes.

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%, so the description must carry semantic weight; it explains expected_revision as an exact-match concurrency token and request_id as a retry key. It adds nothing about id or the shape of the nested listing object, leaving half the parameters unannotated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Replace your account's listing", which is clearly distinct from register_swarm (create) and get_swarm/search_swarms (read). It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the phrase "your account's listing" scopes it to an existing owned listing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the expected_revision requirement tells the agent this is for updating a known revision, and the retry sentence covers the retry case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. register_swarm guidance or exclusion criteria.

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