pilot_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the LITERAL TOKEN MATCH behavior, emphasizes avoiding phrases, and describes the returned list format. It also sets expectations for the next steps in the discovery process.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage details and workflow. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, return format, and the follow-on workflow (pilot_help, pilot_query). This is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool effectively.

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 schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the literal token matching for the keyword parameter and providing concrete examples, which enhances the schema's description.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Pilot Protocol directory of 435+ specialist agents'), and clarifies the matching mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to use it (use single short generic words, not phrases) and a sequential workflow ('After this, call pilot_help... then pilot_query'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest standard.

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