list_personal_peers

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose behavioral context: it operates through the cloud service rather than a helper Codex chat and does not send messages. It still omits permission requirements, read-only status, rate limits, and what data is returned, so the disclosure is partial but useful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by two clarifying constraints. No significant waste, though 'such as Dot' is illustrative rather than essential.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and two behavioral constraints but leaves the sender parameter and the return shape unaddressed. It is workable but not 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 only parameter, sender, is undocumented in the schema and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot infer whether it filters peers or identifies the requester. For a one-parameter tool this is a meaningful gap, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare type string.

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?

States a specific resource — directly connected personal agents — and a discovery verb, and explicitly excludes message-sending, which separates it from send_personal_message and reply tools. It is not maximally sharp because it never explicitly says 'list' or names a sibling, but the intent is clear.

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?

Implies use when you need to discover peers, and the closing 'Does not send messages' signals it is not for messaging. However, it does not state prerequisites, when to prefer list_sessions, or that it should be used before sending. Guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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