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 description need not repeat safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the manager-node prerequisite impossible to infer from schema. It also clarifies scope (cluster-level vs per-node) and return format, though it does not describe error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a clear return declaration. The purpose is front-loaded, the manager-only constraint follows immediately, and the sibling alternatives each have a one-line rationale. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, zero-parameter inspect tool, this description supplies everything necessary to call it correctly: what it inspects, the operational prerequisite, the relationship to nearby tools, and the return type. The output schema is absent but the description adequately characterizes the return as the daemon's swarm attrs.

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)Skip, so the schema already fully documents parameter needs. The description adds relevant detail about what data is returned (id, spec, join-token config, CA info) without needing to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a param-less 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect the swarm'), lists the key data areas (id, spec, join-token config, CA info), and explicitly contrasts with node_list and swarm_join_tokens. This clearly distinguishes it from closely related sibling tools.

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 context ('Works on a manager node only') and names two specific alternatives with conditions: node_list for per-node state)Skip and swarm_join_tokens for new node tokens. This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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