pilot_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: reply format is JSON, replies over ~8 KB get truncated mid-stream, and a 'limit' can mitigate this. It also implies the tool relies on specialist-specific /help documentation, which sets expectations. Minor gaps include error handling or auth requirements, but the most critical behaviors are covered.

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 compact—three sentences—and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core action, the prerequisite help step, the truncation caveat with a mitigation, and the alternative tool. No filler or redundancies.

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 tool with two parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the primary use case, the prerequisite step, the large-reply truncation behavior, and the alternative for digests. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit 'Reply is JSON' statement.

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 adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 'limit' usage inside filters, mentioning the default empty query '{}', and tying filter parameters to the specialist's /help reply. This provides context that the raw schema does not convey.

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 'Query a specialist for structured data using its /data command', identifying the specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pilot_summary as an alternative for digests, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other query-like tools like pilot_find or pilot_lookup.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use pilot_help first to learn what filter parameters it accepts' and 'For digests of large datasets, use pilot_summary instead.' It also instructs on handling large replies by passing a 'limit' inside filters, giving clear actionable direction.

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