Index and network status

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the 'index' section degrades to an error text without YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD, and that crawlerPaused appears only when load holds the crawler back. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent could not get from the annotation.

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 and usage in the first sentence, then a dense but organized enumeration of return fields. It is long, but with no output schema the field breakdown earns its space; only the parenthetical detail on virgin-peer notes is arguably expendable.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned keys, notes the auth-dependent failure mode, and explains how to read the values. An agent can call and interpret this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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+resource: check the state of the YaCy peer. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_document or crawl_control, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest relative, trust_status.

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 explicit context ('before or after crawling and searching') and interpretation guidance (queues above 0 = crawl running, seniorPeers above 0 = global reach). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong context without full routing.

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