remote_swarm_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool executes commands, returns aggregated output, and runs in parallel, but it does not disclose error handling, side effects of command execution, or what 'smart-wait' means. This is adequate but leaves significant behavioral details to the schema and the agent's assumptions.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the use case in the second sentence. No wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description gives the essential context: broadcast to swarm, parallel execution, aggregated output, and the primary use case. It does not explain return format or error aggregation, but the schema covers parameters, making the overall package reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail about specific parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reinforces the 'parallel' concept. It fulfills the baseline but does not elevate 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 uses a specific verb ('Broadcast') and resource ('command to all sessions in a swarm'), and clearly distinguishes the tool's scope ('all sessions', 'across multiple machines') from sibling tools like remote_pane_exec or remote_swarm_input. It also mentions parallel execution and aggregated output, making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use for running the same command across multiple machines.' This provides clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly.

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