Swarm presets (list, or show one to customise)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing precedence rules (project presets cannot replace built-ins or user presets), the read-only nature of project-sourced members, and that broken files are reported with a skip reason. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the two modes and the sibling reference before the detail. The parenthetical about read-only repo presets is dense but earns its place by explaining an otherwise surprising restriction; overall there is almost no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still sketches what is listed (kind, members, rubric, source). For a two-param read-only tool the coverage is solid, though it could note the default workspace resolution more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain both name (show one preset) and workspace (project directory to include). The description restates the name behavior but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List the predefined swarms') and explicitly covers the dual mode ('or show one in full'), naming the sibling preset_swarm that consumes these presets. An agent can distinguish this inspection tool from preset_swarm's execution role without opening either schema.

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?

It gives clear context: listing when name is omitted, full when name is given, and where custom presets live (~/.agent-intern/swarms/ vs <workspace>/.agent-intern/swarms/). It does not explicitly frame when to inspect presets rather than run preset_swarm directly, so an exclusion statement is missing, but the usage context is strong.

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