Connected peers

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond by stating it needs no password and, critically, warning that names and tags are peer-chosen untrusted data. It also decodes the meaning of 'senior' (answer searches), 'signed', and 'reach' values, which annotations and schema do not.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and use cases first, then the per-entry field list. Every sentence carries information, though the field enumeration is long by necessity given no output schema.

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 compensates by enumerating every returned field (name, hash, type, signed, reach, tags, lastSeen) with format notes (UTC yyyyMMddHHmmss) and the direct/relay distinction. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default, min, and max. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the load.

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 the other peers your YaCy peer knows') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling index_status by noting it does not include this peer itself. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening a 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 concrete diagnostic use cases ('see why a global search finds little', 'which peers declare tags such as ads') and routes the self-inspection case to index_status. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough to select the tool confidently.

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