peers

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it reads from dialog_messages, returns specific fields, marks self, and can return empty. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a list operation, this is sufficient.

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 4 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, data source, return details, edge case (empty). It front-loads the action and is free of fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (1 optional parameter, no annotations), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when it's empty. The presence of an output schema is not needed for completeness here.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so by stating 'activity in the last `window_min`', clarifying the time window and defaulting to 5. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though examples or constraints (min/max) would enhance it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists concurrent Claude conversations active within a time window, with specific output fields (cid, snippet, age, message count) and behavior (self marked with *, empty if alone). This provides a specific verb+resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like 'dialog_search' or 'context'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for checking active conversations, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'neighbors' or provide context on when not to use it.

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