pilot_trust_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'Cheap and idempotent — call freely,' disclosing cost and side-effect profile, and explains the auto-approve behavior for backbone specialists. This gives the agent clear safety and reliability expectations.

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 highly concise and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and usage context, the second explains the underlying requirement, the third covers edge cases, and the fourth gives operational advice. No filler or redundant detail.

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 one-parameter check tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains when to use it, why it matters, special cases, and cost/idempotency. The schema covers the parameter fully, and the description's mention of 'trust state' and 'auto-approve' provides sufficient understanding of the return semantics even without an output schema.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the 'target' parameter (100% coverage), including its types and the special auto-approve behavior. The main description adds little beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that it can be a peer or specialist, so no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 purpose: 'Check the current trust state with a peer or specialist' and immediately ties it to a specific workflow ('BEFORE calling pilot_send / ...'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a pre-flight check rather than an action, and it is not a tautology.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: before any sending, publishing, broadcasting, or subscribing. It explains why it is necessary (bilateral trust, failure without trust) and provides contextual guidance for backbone specialists vs. human peers, implicitly directing the agent to use pilot_handshake when explicit handshake is needed.

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