Orchestrate parallel role-based subagents to complete a goal, with configurable worker limits and shared provider support for multi-model task delegation.
Run parallel specialist subagents; multiple workers may share a provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| roles | No | ||
| max_agents | No | ||
| mission_id | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that 'multiple workers may share a provider.' It does not disclose concurrency limits (max_agents caps at 32), whether the call blocks, cost implications, failure handling, or return 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?
A single short sentence is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase 'multiple workers may share a provider' is the only informative content and is buried without context.
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 5-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this definition is far too thin. It leaves the agent unable to determine correct invocation or expected behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the five parameters. Key semantics like what 'roles' entries should contain, what 'mission_id' and 'project_id' scope to, and the meaning of 'max_agents' remain entirely unexplained.
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 action (run parallel specialist subagents) but does not clarify what a 'swarm' produces, how it differs from siblings like delegate or consensus, or what 'specialist subagents' concretely means. The purpose is inferable but vague relative to the many orchestration siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings like delegate, consensus, and mission_status available, the description gives no signal about when a swarm approach is appropriate versus a single delegation or a consensus run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.