nymrel_swarm_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the dispatch action but does not mention side effects, delivery guarantees, permissions, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences beyond the basic action.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes relevant context in a concise manner. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It omits information about return values, asynchronous behavior, error handling, and any constraints or prerequisites. Even with 100% schema coverage, an agent lacks key operational details to use 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema; the examples like 'handoff' and 'broadcast' map directly to enum values already listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (dispatch) and resource (structured message envelopes) with a specific context (multi-agent studio task bus). It also notes use cases (handoffs, reviews, broadcasts), which differentiates it from more generic messaging tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by mentioning inter-agent coordination and specific use cases, but it does not provide explicit exclusions or compare with alternatives like nymrel_beacon_ping. An agent can infer usage, but lacks clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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