get_peer_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Compensates well by listing specific output fields (addresses, latency, services, version) and the hosted API mode caveat. Could improve by explicitly stating the read-only/safe nature of the operation, but 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with core functionality (peer details and attributes), followed by deployment-specific context (hosted API mode). Every clause provides distinct value.

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?

Appropriate for tool complexity: zero input parameters with existing output schema means description need not elaborate return values extensively. The enumerated fields (addresses, latency, services, version) provide sufficient context for agent to understand output utility without violating DRY principle against the output schema.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline 4 per scoring rubric. Description correctly avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist, focusing instead on output semantics and operational context.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Get connected peer details' names the verb and resource, while enumerating exact fields (addresses, latency, services, version). Distinguishes from siblings like get_network_info or get_node_status by focusing on peer-level connectivity metrics rather than general node or network state.

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?

Provides contextual usage guidance regarding 'hosted API mode' behavior, clarifying whose peers are returned in that deployment scenario. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus similar networking tools (e.g., get_network_info) and does not state prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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