get_swarm_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior by noting it 'reports inactive when Swarm is not detected', which tells the agent how to interpret the empty/degraded case. It does not describe the response shape beyond field names, but that is a minor gap for a read-only status call.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the edge-case behavior following. Every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and readOnly semantics already declared, the description carries exactly the burden it needs to: what is returned and how the not-detected case is signaled. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical does not need to expand on arguments that do not exist.

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?

Concrete verb+resource ('Get Docker Swarm cluster info') with the returned fields enumerated in parentheses, so the agent knows this is cluster-level state rather than a list. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_swarm_nodes or list_swarm_services, but the 'cluster info' framing makes the scope apparent.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the cluster-overview call versus the swarm list tools, but the description never states when to prefer it or what alternatives exist. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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