pilot_handshake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: trust is bilateral, propagation has a seconds-to-a-minute delay, and immediate send attempts may fail. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations capture, though it does not cover edge cases like repeated handshakes or revocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the most critical operational caveats (approval types and propagation delay). Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenario: what it does, target types, approval behavior, and a practical troubleshooting tip. It lacks detail on the response format or what happens if the target is already trusted, but these are minor gaps for a handshake tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; it mentions "target" in context (catalog specialists vs human peers) and the reason field is only implied as part of the approval flow. The schema's property descriptions already fully define both parameters.

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 tool's function: "Initiate bilateral trust with a peer or specialist." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pilot_trust_check (which checks trust) and pilot_approve (which approves requests). It also names concrete target examples and clarifies the trust relationship.

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 strong usage context: it explains that catalog specialists auto-approve while human peers require manual approval, and it offers a practical retry instruction if pilot_send fails after a handshake due to propagation delay. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the guidance effectively directs the agent on when and how to use it.

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