list_peers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the return content (per-peer purpose and reachability), which is useful context beyond the name, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. It stops short of stating whether the roster is scoped to the caller, how reachability is determined, or how failures are reported.

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 front-loaded clause that names the resource and enumerates the per-entry fields with no filler. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing ('with what each does') is slightly informal for a tool contract.

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 the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it correctly only hints at the shape (purpose plus reachability). With zero parameters and a simple read operation, little else is required, though a note on scope or staleness of the peer list would have made it complete.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection arguments are needed, consistent with 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?

Names the resource (peers available for delegation) and what each entry conveys: capability description and reachability. It distinguishes itself from task-oriented siblings like list_available_tasks and list_delegated_tasks by making clear the subject is peers, not tasks. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 connection to delegate is implicit in 'peers you may delegate work to', so an agent can infer this is a discovery step before delegating. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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