pilot_extension_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only check returning connection status, port, and installation instructions. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the benefit, and finally list return values. No waste, every sentence serves a clear role.

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?

The description is complete for a simple zero-parameter tool: it states the purpose, the behavioral context (bypassing detection), and the return values. No gaps given the lack of output schema or complex parameters.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter information. It redundantly states 'Parameters: (none)' but does not add value beyond what the schema shows.

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 identifies the tool as checking if the Pilot Chrome extension is connected and routing commands, specifying the benefit of bypassing Cloudflare and bot detection. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools (e.g., pilot_click, pilot_navigate) by being a status check.

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 explains the context (when connected, commands route through Chrome) which implies using this tool before performing other actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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