Squad Federate

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the delegation mechanism (returns Coordinator persona, routing decision, dispatch request), the init mode for federation creation, and the "confirm tier with gates" execution. This provides a clear mental model of what the tool does and produces.

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 densely packed with relevant information, well-structured with the main purpose upfront. It uses formatting (bold) for emphasis. While it could be slightly more concise, it is efficient given the complexity of the tool.

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 (8 parameters, 1 required, 3 enums, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and return values (persona, routing decision, dispatch request). It lacks some edge case details but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds significant semantic value beyond parameter names/types. It explains how init triggers federation build, how mode and squad interact, and the meaning of context and profile. This extra context elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: running the squad federation meta layer for repositories with named sub-squads. It gives concrete examples (product, azure) and explains the federation process (reading registry, selecting sub-squads, running protocol). It distinguishes itself as the catch-all federation entry point, differentiating from sibling tools like squad_architect or squad_run.

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 use cases: cross-sub-squad requests, explicit sub-squad targeting, or federation setup. It also hints at when to use different modes (autopilot for federation-level pipeline). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare directly to siblings, which is a minor gap.

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