pilot_received

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the storage location (~/.pilot/received/) and the destructive behavior of clear=true ('purge after processing'). This is meaningful transparency for a potential delete operation, though it doesn't mention other side effects or output format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then relevant details. Every word earns its place: 'List files received from peers (~/.pilot/received/)' is efficient, and the second sentence packs the companion tool and parameter behavior without fluff.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, location, and parameter behavior. However, it doesn't mention the return format (e.g., list of file names), which would be helpful but isn't critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 by clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema: 'Pass clear=true to purge after processing' provides semantic context that the schema's 'Purge after listing' doesn't fully convey—specifically that purging is intended after processing the files.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'List files received from peers (~/.pilot/received/)'. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning the directory path and its companion tool 'pilot_send_file', making it distinct from other pilot_* tools.

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 clear usage context: it tells the user to pair with pilot_send_file and explains when to use the clear parameter ('Pass clear=true to purge after processing'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the pairing reference gives enough guidance for a simple list tool.

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