Agent Farm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'parallel task execution' which hints at concurrency behavior, but doesn't disclose critical operational details: whether this is a read or write operation, what happens to existing swarms, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'deploy' actually entails. The example shows input format but not behavioral outcomes.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and example. Each sentence adds value - the example is particularly helpful for understanding the tasks parameter format. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be adding colony_id context.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It partially documents one parameter but leaves colony_id completely unexplained. As a deployment tool likely involving system changes, it should address behavioral implications, prerequisites, and expected outcomes more thoroughly given the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates partially by explaining the 'tasks' parameter with an example JSON structure showing {prompt, context?} objects. However, it provides no information about the 'colony_id' parameter - what it represents, format requirements, or where to obtain it. With 2 parameters and only 1 partially documented, this meets the baseline for partial compensation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Deploy swarm for parallel task execution.' It specifies the verb ('deploy') and resource ('swarm'), and the example provides concrete context about task structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_swarm' or 'quick_swarm', which appear to be related swarm operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools containing 'swarm' in their names (api_swarm, code_gen_swarm, quick_swarm, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific deployment tool is appropriate versus other swarm-related tools. The example shows task structure but doesn't establish usage context.

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