Coordinates agents indirectly through shared blackboard state to plan swarm task iterations, enabling decentralized collaboration without direct messaging.
Indirect coordination via shared state (blackboard pattern)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task description. | |
| iterations | No | Number of coordination iterations to plan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.29Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying coordination pattern (shared state/blackboard), which is one behavioral trait, but says nothing about side effects, state mutation, permissions, return behavior, or reversibility. For a coordination tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 concise phrase with no filler, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded only in the sense that everything is one fragment; there is no structure to guide the agent through purpose, usage, or behavior. Concise but not appropriately sized.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a coordination task that likely returns a plan or state, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it operates. It only provides a conceptual label. It is not completely empty, but it is far from complete enough to invoke the tool confidently.
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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not enhance it.
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 coordination mechanism ('indirect coordination via shared state') and differentiates it from other swarm strategies, but it never states the actual operation the tool performs. It is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource, so an agent must infer whether the tool plans, runs, or configures stigmergy coordination. Vague but not tautological.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives named. The description implies a context (indirect coordination), but it does not help the agent choose between this tool and siblings like hb_swarm_consensus or hb_swarm_parallel. Matches the 'no guidance' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.