pilot_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the trust requirement and delivery mechanism (recipient finds via pilot_received). Could add error/edge-case behavior (e.g., non-trusted peer handling), but the provided behavioral details are meaningful and valuable.

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: main purpose, common uses, and prerequisite. Front-loaded, zero fluff, every sentence serves a distinct function.

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?

Covers the workflow, trust prerequisite, and recipient discovery. For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate. Missing error behavior or return details, but not critical given 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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly specifies verb (send), resource (local file to peer), and context (Pilot overlay). Mentions recipient discovery via pilot_received, distinguishing it from generic send/broadcast tools. Common-use examples (code patch, dataset, artifact) further clarify intent.

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 common use cases and explicit prerequisite (trust via handshake and approval). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the references to pilot_received and handshake imply file-transfer-specific usage. Strong context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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