list_autopilots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the resource type and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or the structure of the returned list. For a list tool, the lack of output details is a notable gap.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The parenthetical clarification is valuable without being verbose, and all content earns its place.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not specify the return format or what fields are contained in the list, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate. The sibling tools (e.g., get_autopilot) imply some structure, but the description alone leaves room for ambiguity.

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 parameter workspace_id is fully documented in the schema with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('autopilots'), with the parenthetical 'scheduled/triggered automations' adding helpful domain context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_autopilot (singleton details) and list_autopilot_runs (historical runs) by specifying the top-level collection.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists all autopilots. The parameter description for workspace_id adds a usage nuance (omit to use default/only workspace), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_autopilot or list_autopilot_runs, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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