inspect_swarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions the data source (SQLite) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves critical gaps for safe invocation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could afford to add parameter context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states what the tool returns. However, with no annotations and missing parameter details, the description is not fully complete for an agent to understand prerequisites or 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% (no descriptions in schema properties), and the description does not explain parameters like swarm_id or run_id at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on required vs optional parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a compact swarm run summary, specifying the data sources (SQLite) and content (status, progress, host metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_status or inspect_task.

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 compact swarm run summaries, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., inspect_status for broader status). No when-not-to-use or context exclusions are mentioned.

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