swarm_join_tokens

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that the tokens are secret bearer credentials, warns against logging them, and explains that values are reloaded from swarm.attrs to ensure currency. These details are critical for safe operation and are not present in the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by contextual usage, a security warning, and implementation detail. The returns line is clearly separated. Every sentence adds value with 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 no-argument getter, the description covers all necessary aspects: the returned dictionary structure, the sensitive nature of the data, the workflow context, and the mechanism ensuring freshness. Without an output schema, the explicit return format is especially helpful. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits any parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no misleading information. It also documents the return structure, further aiding invocation.

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 opening sentence 'Return the swarm's worker and manager join tokens' clearly specifies the action (return) and the resource (swarm join tokens). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swarm_inspect or swarm_unlock by focusing exclusively on the join tokens. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 states that these tokens are required for swarm_join and explains the init -> join loop, providing clear context on when this tool is needed. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use case is strongly implied. No exclusions are necessary since this tool uniquely returns join tokens.

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