ruvltra_swarm_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral traits: parallel execution, an 8-perspective ceiling, and a dependency on English input quality. However, it is silent on whether execution is asynchronous or long-running — the timeoutMs parameter and the ruvltra_status sibling suggest a job model — and on return shape or failure 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?

Two short sentences, roughly 20 words, with the action front-loaded and no filler. The English-language tip is secondary but brief and earns its place as a quality note.

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 parallel tool with zero annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no routing to its sibling ruvltra_code_review, the description is incomplete. It covers the core purpose and perspective count, but leaves sibling differentiation, async/long-running behavior, and the meaning of most parameters unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only illuminates the 'perspectives' concept and the 8-agent cap that mirrors maxAgents' maximum. The other four parameters — code format, language values, maxAgents semantics, and timeoutMs behavior — receive no explanatory help whatsoever.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('multi-perspective parallel code reviews'), and a concrete cap ('up to 8 perspectives'). The qualifier 'multi-perspective parallel' implicitly separates it from the sibling ruvltra_code_review, but it never names that sibling or spells out the distinction, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over the closely related siblings ruvltra_code_review or ruvltra_parallel_generate. The only advice — 'provide instructions and context in English' — is an input-quality tip, not a selection rule, so it does not help an agent route between alternatives.

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