list_my_peers

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates a read operation and mentions parameters for filtering, but lacks details on pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or whether global agents are always included. It does not contradict any annotations (none present), but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 brief with a clear structure: a purposeful sentence, an explanatory sentence, and a parameter list. No redundant information. Could be slightly more compact, but effective.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics. Only minor gaps like default pagination limits or whether result ordering is defined.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: not_in_chat excludes entities already in a chat, peer_type filters by 'User' or 'Agent', page/page_size for pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and names.

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 clearly states it lists entities you can interact with in chat rooms, specifying peers include other users, agents, and global agents. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_agents (lists your own agents) and list_my_contacts (contacts).

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 tool is for listing available participants for chat rooms, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No exclusion or comparison with similar list tools (e.g., list_my_contacts, list_agent_peers). An agent might infer usage from context, but guidance is implicit.

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