mullet_swarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits the important traits: that this dispatches many paid model calls (cost/concurrency implications), that a dry_run plan mode exists, that partial failures are possible, and that it does not edit files. The safety and side-effect profile is entirely unstated.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage criterion immediately after. Nothing repeats the schema or title.

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 an 8-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about what the synthesized result looks like, how the task plan differs under dry_run, or what the caller receives. The agent must infer all behavioral and output expectations from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter including the deprecated 'apply' and 'dry_run' is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only loosely echoes the files/items split with "multiple files, items" and adds no format or behavioral detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb pair (fan-out, synthesize) and the mechanism (parallel Kimi K2 calls) applied to a named input (goal). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as mullet_run or mullet_delegate to differentiate itself from the other mullet orchestration tools.

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?

"Use for tasks that can be split across multiple files, items, or independent sub-questions" gives a concrete selection criterion an agent can apply. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the alternative (e.g., mullet_opencode for edits), so there are no exclusions.

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