orchestrate_swarm

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing that objectives are wrapped into JITNA packets and distributed across Router, Guardian, Executor, and Scribe agents. It does not explain whether coordinating these agents has side effects, but it does not contradict the readOnlyHint.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the involved agents without padding. Some jargon like 'JITNA packets' and '1+4' is unexplained, but the length is appropriate.

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 output schema, nested objects, and annotations, the description is adequate but high-level: it does not explain JITNA packets, how to set readiness/context parameters, or how the tool relates to sibling tools. An agent could call it correctly from the schema, but the description leaves moderate ambiguity about orchestration semantics.

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 four parameters. The description adds only conceptual context (agent pillars) rather than parameter-specific details such as how data_readiness or context_params affect orchestration, so it stays at the baseline.

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 the action (encapsulates objectives into JITNA packets) and the resource (objectives) while listing the specialized agents involved. It is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or explain what JITNA packets are.

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 explicit statement about when to use orchestrate_swarm versus siblings such as evaluate_fdia, configure_policy, rct_think, or compress_context. The schema implies it is for high-level objectives requiring decomposition, but the description itself gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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