P2P peer health

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: result shape (per-node findings plus a peer list capped at 40, longest-lived first), a redaction policy governed by --reveal-network, and an explicit warning that monikers arrive wrapped in <untrusted> tags and must be treated as data. Those are exactly the behaviors an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and triggering conditions are front-loaded, followed by output shape and then the safety caveats. Every sentence carries operational value — the redaction and untrusted-content notes directly prevent agent errors rather than padding the text.

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 the description need not detail return values, and it correctly stops at the high-level shape. For a read-only diagnostic with one optional parameter, nothing an agent needs — when to call it, what it returns, how to interpret redacted output, how to handle untrusted strings — is missing.

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 single `node` parameter is already fully documented in the schema, but the description reinforces the omit-to-check-all behavior with "at most 40" and per-node framing, clarifying what happens at the default. Little is added beyond the schema, which caps this at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Check p2p connectivity of CometBFT nodes") and enumerates the exact signals produced: peer count, inbound/outbound split, public-address peers, cross-chain peers. That scope is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as validator_health, consensus_diagnosis, and node_status.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ("when a node is isolated, catching up slowly, or to verify a sentry topology") plus the expected invariant for a sentry setup, which tells the agent what a good result looks like. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of the top band.

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