pilot_peers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a listing (read-only) and discloses the returned data fields (tags, last-seen timestamps). It does not detail edge cases or output formatting, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient and non-misleading.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, and the included details. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the condition ('currently connected'). It lacks explicit statements about empty results or live vs. cached data, but these are not critical for such a simple listing tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain schema fields. The input schema is empty and 100% covered by the absence of parameters, making parameter semantics inherently clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and explicitly names the resource ('currently connected peers') with the output scope ('tags and last-seen timestamps'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pilot_find or pilot_ping, which are not about listing the current connection set.

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?

The description implies the use case: call this tool when you need to see which peers are currently connected and their metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as pilot_find or pilot_lookup, leaving the usage context implicit.

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