list_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (peer sessions across machines plus online status), which implies a non-destructive read, but never states that it is read-only, nor mentions permissions, rate limits, or pagination.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the defining detail ('agent sessions on this or other machines') and returned attribute ('whether they are online') packed in without waste.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (peers and their online state). Only minor omissions remain, such as whether the list is scoped to a workspace or how many entries are returned.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension is scored 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add or omit.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List hoptell peers') with a clarifying parenthetical defining what a peer is and the key attribute returned (online status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message and read_inbox by being purely enumerative, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is a discovery step preceding send_message, and there is no statement of exclusions or alternatives. Context is implied only.

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