do_autopilot_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does usefully declare the operation is read-only and hints at the returned status vocabulary (on|off|blocked(reason)) and gating concept. It says nothing about permissions, whether the payload requires a specific autopilot identifier, or how large the eligible-point list can get. Adequate but far from complete for an annotation-free 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?

A single dense sentence with the read-only qualifier front-loaded and the return contents enumerated in priority order. Every clause carries information; the only minor redundancy is re-describing return values that an output schema already covers.

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 spelling out return contents is largely redundant, while the genuinely opaque 'payload' parameter and the do_/dm_ autopilot_status duplication go unaddressed. The definition is callable but leaves an agent guessing about how to form the payload.

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?

There is a single required 'payload' object with 0% schema description coverage and additionalProperties=true, so the schema explains nothing. The description mentions 'eligible points' and 'hashes' but never says how to scope the request through payload (e.g. which autopilot or point set to query). It adds some domain vocabulary but no usable parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement, 'Autopilot state (read-only)', and enumerates what it reports (approved/current autopilot hashes, eligible points, per-point status and gate). That clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings such as do_decide, do_promote and do_plan_run. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling dm_autopilot_status, leaving that ambiguity unresolved.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative dm_autopilot_status or of what prerequisite state (a registered/planned autopilot) makes this call meaningful. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'state'.

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