report_host_swarm_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that an outcome is required but does not explain side effects, permissions, or how different outcome values affect the tool's behavior. The 'terminal shortcut' term is vague.

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?

Single sentence is concise but may be overly terse. It front-loads the key equivalence, but could include more critical details without becoming lengthy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters like wave, agents, run_id, swarm_id, workspace_root, or what the tool returns/affects. Much essential context is missing.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions 'outcome' as required, without clarifying the meaning or effect of any parameter, including the enumerated outcome values. This adds little beyond the schema.

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 states it's a terminal shortcut equivalent to report_host_wave with terminal=true, but fails to clearly define the primary action (completing a swarm?) and leaves terms like 'host-native runs' ambiguous. It distinguishes from a sibling only via parameter equivalence, not by specifying the tool's core function.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only hint is that it requires outcome, but no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for different scenarios.

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