peer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and the listed attributes (online status, speed, queue, free slots) give some insight into behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors, auth requirements, or response format, which are ambiguous for a no-annotation tool.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's function and timing. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core query (what status aspects are checked) and context ('before downloading'). It lacks details on return values or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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% and the description does not mention the 'username' parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Username' title. While the parameter is intuitive, the description fails to clarify its exact role (e.g., username of the peer to check).

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 ('Check') and resource ('a peer's online status, speed, queue, and free slots'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like download_status which relates to download state, not peer state. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Before downloading' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the distinction from download_status implicit.

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