Read Autopilot status

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

Annotations already declare the read-only safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: the on/off/unavailable state semantics, the null condition on nextRunAt, plan-restriction explanation via unavailableReason, and an explicit negative disclosure ('No last-run timestamp is provided'). This is well beyond what annotations convey, though it stays focused on output semantics rather than access constraints.

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?

It is front-loaded with the state values, but the middle is a long digression on dailyLimit vs usualDailyLimit first-day allowance logic that repeats itself and is partly redundant with the output schema. Some sentences earn their place, but the definition is longer than a zero-parameter status tool needs.

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 no-arg, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete on the data model, including edge cases like the first-send-day allowance and unavailable plans. The one missing piece is any guidance on when to prefer this over sibling status/settings tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing parameter-related and instead spends its budget on output semantics, which is appropriate for a no-arg status read.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns Autopilot state') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it reads. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named siblings get_autopilot_settings or set_autopilot, leaving the agent to infer that this reads runtime status rather than configuration.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With siblings like get_autopilot_settings, set_autopilot, and get_usage available, an agent gets no routing help about which to call to answer an Autopilot question.

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