powerswarm_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only names the output sections. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it works on completed vs in-progress runs, how large the report may be, or what happens if run_id is omitted. Useful output detail, but the safety/behavior profile is undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited content list and zero filler; the format is efficient. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of report contents is genuinely useful coverage of the return value. However, for a tool with one undocumented and optional parameter plus no annotations, it should also clarify the run_id default and the read-only nature; the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single run_id parameter is never mentioned in the description. Since run_id is not required, the most important semantic — whether omitting it selects the most recent run or is an error — is left completely undefined.

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?

States a specific resource (a per-run Markdown report) and enumerates its contents (per-lane results, red reasons, review commands), which distinguishes it from siblings like powerswarm_status and powerswarm_run. It falls short of a 5 because it uses a noun phrase with no verb (generate/render) and never explicitly contrasts itself with the other powerswarm_* 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over powerswarm_status, nor whether run_id is required or defaults to the latest run. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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