Agent Farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'read-only tools' which is helpful, and describes the 'synthesize' parameter's effect on report generation. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like: what the output looks like, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, performance characteristics, or resource usage implications.

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 four sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains parameters. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by grouping parameter explanations more clearly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters reasonably well, but lacks crucial information about what the tool returns, error conditions, and how it differs from similar swarm tools. For a reconnaissance tool with behavioral complexity, more context would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining all three parameters: 'target_path' as 'Directory to explore', 'deep' as 'Enable deep work mode... multi-iteration for complex analysis', and 'synthesize' as using 'qwen2.5:14b to synthesize findings into unified report'. This provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements for target_path.

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: 'scouts explore a directory/codebase' and 'map out a target', specifying the verb (explore/map) and resource (directory/codebase/target). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'read-only tools' and 'reconnaissance swarm', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'file_swarm' or 'deep_analysis_swarm'.

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 many sibling tools available (including other swarm tools like 'file_swarm', 'deep_analysis_swarm', 'code_review_swarm'), there's no indication of what makes this tool appropriate for reconnaissance versus other analysis approaches.

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