List running crawls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent while adding value: it states the authentication requirement (YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD) and enumerates the per-entry fields returned. It does not mention pagination or behavior when no crawls exist, but with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema present, the disclosure is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then return shape, then exclusions, then pairing advice, then safety. Each sentence carries information an agent needs (handle semantics, status field, auth), with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract itself (handle, name, depth, maxPagesPerHost with the 0=no-limit convention, status), plus the auth requirement and a companion tool for queue status. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. It correctly implies no input filtering is needed, and instead spends its words on interpreting the returned handle field.

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 verb and resource (list crawls) with precise scope: crawls started on your YaCy peer that it still knows about, explicitly excluding YaCy's built-in crawl profiles. An agent can distinguish it from crawl_control (which stops a crawl) and index_status (queue sizes) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the reason to call it (follow a crawl or obtain the handle needed by crawl_control), names the alternative tool, and states the exclusion (built-in profiles are not listed). It also names index_status as the complementary call for pending work, which is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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