List running crawls

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the auth requirement (YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD), the fact that only crawls still known to the peer are returned, and the exclusion of built-in profiles. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Purpose and scope come first, then the control_crawl/get_index_status routing, then the field list and operational caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape (one entry per crawl with handle, name, depth, maxPagesPerHost, status) as well as auth and exclusions. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description spends its words on return-entry fields (handle, name, depth, maxPagesPerHost, status) rather than params, which is appropriate given there are none.

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 names the specific resource (crawls started on your YaCy peer that are still known), the scope (excludes YaCy's built-in crawl profiles), and the sibling it feeds into (control_crawl). An agent can distinguish it from crawl_site, control_crawl, and get_index_status 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?

It states the two intended follow-on actions (follow a crawl, stop one via control_crawl) and explicitly pairs the tool with get_index_status for checking whether pages are still being fetched. The exclusion of built-in profiles is also a clear when-not condition.

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