Get Hub Peers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: this server serves both mainnet and testnet at once, the network parameter defaults to mainnet when omitted, and the agent should confirm user intent on network selection. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: the first paragraph states purpose and boundary, while the second focuses on the network parameter and the required confirmation step. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required fields, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage boundary, parameter behavior, defaults, and a key prerequisite. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description states what is returned ('peers known by the selected hub') and the tool is simple.

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%, so the description must compensate for the network parameter. It does so thoroughly by explaining that both networks are served, naming the exact values, stating the default behavior, and instructing the agent to disambiguate user intent. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw enum in the 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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('peers known by the selected Obyte hub'), and frames the tool as a 'Raw hub read' for network diagnostics. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from address analysis, which separates it from many sibling 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?

The description gives an explicit use case ('Use for network diagnostics, not address analysis') and gives a concrete precondition: confirm which network the user means before calling when it was not made explicit. This is strong routing guidance even without naming a specific alternative sibling tool.

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