Run the pilot agent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, and it does: the call is asynchronous, returns a 202 with a run_id, and requires polling agent_run_events. It does not address side effects, authorization, or failure modes, but the most important behavioral trait is communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core instruction. The trailing '202 {run_id}; poll agent_run_events' is telegraphic but conveys necessary follow-up behavior efficiently. It is shorter than ideal but each part serves a purpose.

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 adequate for understanding the async flow and the pilot agent's capabilities, but it omits the meaning of scan_id and does not describe the response format beyond the 202 status. Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, this leaves noticeable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'instruction' is a free-text instruction, but it does not explain 'scan_id' at all, despite it being a required field. This leaves the agent guessing about a key input.

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 action: give the pilot agent a free-text instruction for navigate/inspect flows, and it lists the tools the agent can use. This differentiates it from siblings like agent_run_events or agent_chat by focusing on launching the pilot agent rather than querying or chatting.

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 gives concrete usage context: use for navigation/inspection instructions and expect a 202 run_id, then poll agent_run_events. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like agent_chat, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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