remote_swarm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get detailed status' conveys a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires an existing swarm, or how it handles invalid swarm IDs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, the target, and that the result includes all targets. It could optionally mention error handling or output fields, but the tool's simplicity does not demand more.

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 schema already documents the single swarmId parameter as 'Swarm ID' with 100% coverage. The description confirms that swarmId refers to a specific swarm but adds no additional constraints, format, or range information beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool gets detailed status of a specific swarm, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remote_swarm_list by focusing on a single swarm and including all targets.

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 clearly implies this should be used when a user needs detailed status for one swarm rather than a list of swarms, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context makes the intended use case evident.

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