peck_fleet_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by naming the returned fields and clarifying that load-status indicates whether a wallet has been spun up. It is clearly a read-only info operation. It doesn't cover error behavior or staleness of balance, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first enumerates the payload, the second states the intended use. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and a concrete use case, which is enough to invoke correctly. It could mention failure modes or balance freshness, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the single parameter documented as 'Account name from peck_fleet_list.' The description adds only implicit context (keychain account) but no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieval operation for a single fleet identity and enumerates the exact fields returned (keychain account, address, pubkey, load-status, default flag, balance). This distinguishes it from peck_fleet_list, which lists fleets, and from write-oriented siblings like peck_fleet_spawn.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call this before writing with agent_account to verify the agent is funded and ready. It also ties the account parameter to peck_fleet_list. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention, so not a 5.

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