list_swarms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions server-side filtering and exact match, but omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, authentication, or whether the list is complete. For a read tool, the behavior is partially transparent but insufficient.

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: two sentences for the main purpose and return fields, plus a clear parameter doc. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and parameter details. Missing details like sorting or pagination are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains the 'site' parameter's behavior (exact match, server-side, empty for all). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 'List all AP swarms (clusters) from Aruba Central' with a specific resource (AP swarms) and source. It distinguishes from siblings like list_aps (individual APs) and list_switches by focusing on clusters.

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 usage when listing clusters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_aps for individual APs). No when-not or direct comparisons with siblings are provided.

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