swarm_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds an important operational constraint ('Works on a manager node only') and defines the return type, but does not describe error behavior when invoked on a non-manager node.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it inspects, when to use, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no wasted words.

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 parameterless, read-only inspect tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the resource (swarm), the scope (daemon's swarm), the prerequisite (manager node), the return type (dict), and the alternatives. No additional information is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the returned data (id, spec, join-token config, CA info), but there are no parameters to explain, meeting the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 it inspects the swarm the daemon belongs to, listing the included fields (id, spec, join-token config, CA info). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly comparing with node_list and swarm_join_tokens.

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?

It explicitly specifies when to use: on a manager node for cluster-level configuration. It names direct alternatives: node_list for per-node state and swarm_join_tokens for new node tokens, leaving no ambiguity.

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