create_autopilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at behavior by saying the autopilot 'files an issue,' but does not explain side effects, activation requirements, scheduling semantics, or what happens when the autopilot triggers. This lacks important context for a tool that creates a background automation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is far from complete. It does not convey return values, prerequisite conditions, or parameter behaviors, leaving too much for the agent to infer. The description covers core purpose but omits critical operational context.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It fails to do so—none of the required fields (title, assignee_type, assignee_id, execution_mode) are explained beyond their names. The phrase 'files an issue for an agent' offers a vague hint about assignee_id but is insufficient for 8 parameters.

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 creates an autopilot, defining it as a recurring/triggered automation that files an issue for an agent. This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or create_agent, making its unique purpose immediately apparent.

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 phrase 'recurring/triggered automation' implies this tool should be used when an issue needs to be generated on a schedule or in response to a trigger, rather than for one-off issue creation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like create_issue, leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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