relay_peers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the data is public, no content encryption applies, and the returned content is untrusted third-party data with an explicit prompt-injection warning. This is genuinely useful, though it stops short of describing volume, refresh behavior, or relationship to relay stats.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the untrusted-content warning is prominent. The opening sentence is a fragment rather than a clear statement of purpose, so structure is efficient but not fully front-loaded with actionable meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not needed, and there are no parameters to document. However, the description never clarifies what a "relay peer" entry represents or how this differs from relay_info, leaving a gap for a zero-arg listing tool in a crowded relay/agent namespace.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The absence of arguments is consistent with a simple peer-listing endpoint.

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 is a noun fragment, "Federated relay peers.", which largely restates the tool name and never states a verb or action (list? get? enumerate?). It gives no differentiation from siblings like relay_info or agent_relay_stats, so an agent cannot tell exactly what this tool returns versus those.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (relay_info, agent_relay_stats) is the alternative. The only directives given are safety warnings about the returned content, not selection guidance.

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