list_peers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that secrets are redacted, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, or output format. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the purpose and key behavioral note. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and secrets redaction. It could be slightly more explicit about returning all rows, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists peer_config rows for the current user, with a note about secrets redaction. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_peer or remove_peer.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_peer_status or sync_peer. The name and description imply it's for listing, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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