probe_peers

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: parallel fan-out, return format (list of peer-answer pairs), and a 30-second collection window. It lacks details on authorization needs or error handling, but covers the main behavioral traits beyond the verb.

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 two sentences, highly concise. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage context and expected output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (list of pairs) and includes a time constraint. It covers the essential aspects for a simple tool, though it omits details like error behavior or maximum peers. Still, it is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it explains the purpose of null for peers and the return format, but this adds little beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Fan-out the same short question to many peers in parallel.' It specifies the resource (peers) and the purpose (discovery), with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ask_question' (single peer) and 'list_peers' (no questioning).

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 provides explicit guidance to 'Use for discovery' with an example, implying the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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