swarm_inspect

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the manager-node-only constraint and describes the return value (dict of swarm attrs). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the main function, the second gives a usage constraint, the third offers alternatives, and the final notes the return type. No waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return format ('dict') and typical fields (id, spec, join-token config, CA info). It also covers operational context (manager node only). It could provide more detail on the dict's structure, but for a read-only inspect tool with clear annotations it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides no parameter info. The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately doesn't fabricate parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Inspect the swarm this daemon belongs to (id, spec, join-token config, CA info).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning cluster-level config and explicitly naming alternatives.

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 concrete usage guidance: 'Works on a manager node only' and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools: 'for per-node state use node_list; for the tokens new nodes need, swarm_join_tokens.' This is explicit when-to-use and alternatives.

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