swg_reacquire

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description explains re-minting identity, version lineage enforcement, and lists out-of-guarantee scenarios. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 additional clarifications. It conveys essentials without excess, though it could be slightly more structured for 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?

Given the tool's niche purpose, the description covers recovery action, behavioral rules, and reliability caveats. It is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'path' with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'path' represents, leaving ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to.

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 recovers from stale_view deny by re-minting identity and returning current bytes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like swg_read and swg_write by specifying the recovery context.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('recover from stale_view deny') and when-not-to-use (SINGLE-HOST only, not for divergent history). Also gives instructions to write FROM exact bytes returned, with warnings about limitations.

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