Index and network status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the index section degrades to an error text without YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD (an auth dependency), virgin peers get a remediation note, and crawlerPaused appears only when load throttles the crawler. This is genuinely useful operational detail an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 purpose, then a compact enumeration of the returned keys with parenthetical detail. Dense but every clause maps to a distinct piece of useful information; it is longer than a one-liner but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating every return key ('peer', 'connectedPeers', 'seniorPeers', 'index', 'crawlerPaused') along with how to read them. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its budget documenting the return shape, which is appropriate when there is nothing to parameterize.

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 ('Check the state of your YaCy peer') and scopes it temporally ('before or after crawling and searching'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_peers, get_trust_status, or get_ranking_settings, which address different state.

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 clear when-to-use context ('before or after crawling and searching') and even interpretive triggers ('queues above 0' means a crawl is running, 'seniorPeers above 0' means global search can reach peers). It does not name a specific alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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