Squad Federate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the delegated execution model (returns persona, routing decision, framed dispatch request), the federation registry and meta-routing files it reads, and the scoped state path. It also describes the init and promote modes' effects (propose → confirm → create, relocating state intact). This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't detail error conditions or side effects beyond state relocation.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining modes and delegation. It's a single paragraph that covers a complex tool without excessive verbosity. The bolded terms help readability, though the length is at the upper end of what's ideal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, 4 enums, multiple modes, delegation model) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the federation registry, meta-routing, scoped state, init/promote modes, autopilot pipeline, and discovery gate. Minor gaps include not detailing the exact return format or error handling, but the description covers the essential operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between parameters (e.g., init vs promote modes, mode=autopilot with no squad= target, discovery applied per qualifying sub-squad) and how they affect routing. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, though the schema already does most of the work.

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 clearly states the tool runs the squad federation meta layer for repositories with multiple named sub-squads, and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the catch-all federation entry point. It names specific actions (init, promote) and the delegated execution model, making the purpose 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for cross-sub-squad requests, explicit sub-squad targeting, or federation setup. It also explains the init and promote modes and how they differ, providing clear context for selection. While it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, the usage scenarios are well-defined and the tool is positioned as the catch-all entry point, which implicitly differentiates it.

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