Sapper Peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say that add/remove mutate persisted state under the `store` directory, whether removal is reversible, what sender/target/channel affect, or what authorization checks apply. 'User-authorized' is the only behavioral hint and it is left undefined.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the scope front-loaded, so there is no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy — the space saved was needed for parameter and behavior detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a nine-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and zero annotations, the description should at minimum explain the add/remove/discover modes and the store persistence; it explains none of them.

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% across nine parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. An agent cannot learn from this text the difference between add and remove, what note, sender, target, channel, cwd, or store are for, or how discover interacts with the mutation parameters.

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 names two resources, tmux panes and AI peers, and two verbs, discover and manage, so the domain is identifiable. But 'manage' is a catch-all that gives no clue whether the tool adds, removes, tags, or routes messages to peers — the schema hints at add/remove/note/sender/target/channel, none of which surface here. It also does no work to separate itself from peers like sapper_fleet, sapper_send, or sapper_status.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what 'user-authorized' implies operationally. The parenthetical CLI reference ('like `sapper peers`') presumes the agent knows that command, which it may not.

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