swarm_diagnose_ntop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the default agent count (20), parallel execution, and the output format (findings + synthesis). However, it omits potential costs, side effects, or failure behavior, which is significant for a tool that spawns 20 parallel agents.

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 function and includes key operational details (parallel, default count, output). There is no wasted wording.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It mentions high-level returns but does not describe the structure of findings or the nature of the synthesis, nor does it explain what the swarm does beyond diagnosis. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for understanding parameters. It only hints at the agentCount parameter by mentioning '20 agents' as a default, but it does not explain the purpose of 'errorText,' 'goal,' or 'context.' This leaves the required parameter and optional ones nearly unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a multi-agent nTop diagnosis swarm.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'diagnose_ntop_error' by emphasizing 'multi-agent' and 'swarm,' which implies a parallel approach versus a likely single-agent diagnostic.

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 the tool is for nTop error diagnosis but does not explicitly state when to use it over 'diagnose_ntop_error' or other siblings. It provides context (multi-agent diagnosis with parallel agents) but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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