swarm_join

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, so the tool is mutating but not destructive. The description adds that it returns a bool but does not disclose side effects (e.g., node becomes manager/worker, ports opened), auth requirements, or failure modes. With annotations providing minimal safety info, the description should elaborate more.

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 relatively concise: one line summary, a list of parameters with one-line comments, and return type. It is well-structured and to the point, though could be slightly more polished.

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 complexity of the operation (5 parameters, 2 required) and no output schema details, the description does not cover necessary context like success/failure states, error conditions, or permissions required. It is incomplete for a non-trivial tool.

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 compensate. It lists parameter names and provides a brief line for each, but lacks details on formats, allowed values, constraints, or default behaviors (e.g., default listen_addr is '0.0.0.0:2377' but not mentioned). The description adds marginal value over parameter names.

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 'Join an existing swarm' clearly states the action (join) and the resource (swarm). It distinguishes from siblings like swarm_init (initiate new swarm) and swarm_leave (leave swarm), providing specific verb+resource.

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 implies usage context by stating the tool joins an existing swarm, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., node not already part of swarm) or exclusions.

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