hb_swarm_hierarchy

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing. It does not disclose whether tasks are actually executed, whether worker agents are spawned, what the hierarchy depth means, or whether the call is synchronous — all critical for an orchestration tool.

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?

Four words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or returns, so nothing earns its place because nothing is there.

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?

This is a multi-agent orchestration tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and only a fragment of description text. Everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly (execution semantics, agent spawning, result shape, relationship to the other swarm tools) is absent.

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% with two well-labelled parameters (`task`, `subtasks`), so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully covered schema.

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 phrase "Boss-worker delegation pattern" essentially restates the tool name (swarm_hierarchy) in different words rather than stating a verb and resource. It hints at an orchestration strategy but never says whether the tool plans, executes, or just configures the hierarchy, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like hb_swarm_parallel or hb_swarm_consensus.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling swarm patterns. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick hierarchy over parallel or consensus.

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