list_pilot_options

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this operation is safe and non-mutating, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with that. The description adds some useful behavioral context by naming the categories and counts that will be returned, but it does not disclose details like response structure, ordering, or whether the counts are fixed or dynamic. This matches the baseline expectation for a read-only catalog 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the object ('available pilot options'), then efficiently packs the key categorical details into an em-dash list. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration; every element 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 parameterless, read-only catalog tool with an output schema available, this description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it queries and what type of information it will receive. The enumeration of categories covers the tool's content, and the output schema handles return-value specifics. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available pilot options'), and further clarifies the scope by enumerating the four categories it covers: canonical metrics, eval families, benchmark classes, and intervention types. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, most of which are get/verify/create operations. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts like configuration setup, discovery workflows, or any exclusion cases. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and simple read-only nature, which is not enough for strong usage guidance.

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