pilot_subscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior (blocks until count or timeout), the trust requirement (call pilot_trust_check first), and the purpose of collecting messages. It does not detail timeout return behavior or error conditions, but covers key operational traits.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the action, second gives use case, third explains blocking and prerequisite. All information is essential and well-structured.

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?

The description is sufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema. It covers purpose, behavior, and use case. It does not explicitly state return format, but 'collect N published messages' implies the return value. Error handling and edge cases are not covered, but this is acceptable given complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by linking 'count' to 'collect N' and 'timeout_seconds' to 'until timeout', and gives concrete example topics. It also explains the 'peer' parameter requires prior trust, which is not in the schema.

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 subscribes to a topic and collects N messages, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pilot_publish and pilot_broadcast by focusing on the receiving/collecting side of pub/sub.

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 for event-driven coordination with examples like 'deploy-ready' and 'task-done'. It implies this is the tool to wait for peer signals, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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