swarm_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines what availability means (reachable complete copies), the availability-vs-progress failure condition, why queued torrents are filtered out (reported 0 from disconnection), and what partial_selection indicates. It is a read-oriented diagnostic, so the lack of mutation/auth notes is minor.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core question, followed by the definitions an agent needs to interpret availability and progress. No filler, though the partial_selection sentence is packed tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the domain semantics (availability vs progress, exclusions) needed to read results, leaving little an agent would need to guess.

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?

The single parameter include_complete has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explicitly address the parameter, though its framing around 100%/partial_selection torrents implicitly relates to why complete torrents are normally hidden.

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?

Opens with a specific diagnostic goal — 'Judge whether each torrent can actually finish' — which is clearly distinct from listing tools like list_torrents or torrent_detail. It never names a sibling to route against, but the verb+resource (swarm completion feasibility per torrent) is unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: it explains that queued torrents are excluded and why, and that availability<=progress means it can never finish, which tells the agent when the tool is meaningful. However, there is no explicit 'use this rather than X' guidance against the many sibling torrent tools.

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