remote_swarm_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains that swarms connect to multiple servers simultaneously and can broadcast commands, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it omits important side effects such as whether connections are established immediately, auto-reconnect behavior, credential requirements, or that creation returns a swarm ID needed for subsequent commands.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, follows with a brief use-case statement, and then provides practical examples. No sentences are wasted, and the examples earn their place by showing real target formats.

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 covers the input side well with examples and clear purpose, but it does not mention what the tool returns (no output schema exists) or how to follow up after creation (e.g., using remote_swarm_exec). It also only illustrates SSH and GCloud targets, leaving AWS/Azure/custom methods to the schema alone. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent navigating the tool suite.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds valuable example target JSON structures for SSH and GCloud. These examples clarify how to format targets for different methods beyond what the schema alone conveys, though AWS, Azure, and custom examples are not provided.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a swarm of parallel SSH sessions to multiple machines'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing creation and parallel broadcast capability, while siblings like remote_swarm_exec and remote_swarm_end handle other lifecycle phases.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('Useful for managing clusters, fleets, or performing parallel operations'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., remote_session_start for single sessions, or remote_swarm_add_target for modifying an existing swarm).

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