swarm_join_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the tokens are secret bearer credentials, anyone holding the manager token can join as a manager, the result should not be logged, and it always reflects current tokens after a reload. This is substantial and not redundant with 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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage relationship, security warning, implementation detail, and return format. It is front-loaded with the primary action and remains compact without padding.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers return format, sensitivity, and the relationship to `swarm_join`, leaving no critical gaps. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit dict return description.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description clarifies the return format (dict with Worker and Manager keys) and token meanings, which is useful given there is no output schema, but there are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the swarm's worker and manager join tokens.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like swarm_join (which consumes tokens) and swarm_init (which initializes the swarm), and explains the role in the init -> join loop.

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`, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It also advises treating the result as sensitive and avoiding logging. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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