swarm_unlock_key

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool's dependency on autolock, the locked-manager limitation, the security sensitivity (treat as a credential), and the return dict shape. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: usage condition, prerequisite, security note, and return format. No redundancy or fluff.

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 getter with no params and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when it's relevant, prerequisites, and security implications. It is fully self-contained.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning (none exist), but it does describe the return value and its intended use, which is adequate for this parameterless 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return the swarm's current unlock key.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like swarm_unlock (which consumes the key) and swarm_inspect (general inspection). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit context: it only matters when autolock is enabled, must be called against an unlocked manager, and its output is fed to swarm_unlock after restart. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including a key prerequisite and a referral to alternatives.

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