powerswarm_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool returns a format, rules, and an example, which is behaviorally useful. But it doesn't state whether the response is static, cached, or resource-intensive, or whether subsequent calls differ.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool provides and immediately followed by the call-to-action. No wasted words.

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 documentation-oriented tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't describe the shape of the spec (JSON schema, text rules, size) or clarify whether it must be called every session or is a one-time reference.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless retrieval of the spec without contradicting the empty 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 identifies this as a spec/documentation tool for the PowerSwarm request format, which is a clear verb+resource in context. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like powerswarm_validate or powerswarm_run beyond implying it's a prerequisite reading step.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: 'Read this before writing a request,' which tells the agent when to invoke it relative to the other PowerSwarm tools. It doesn't name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing instruction is actionable.

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