skypilot_cluster_autostop

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses idle-based stopping, that down=True tears the cluster down, that -1 disables the timer, and that a hook runs before autostop. It stops short of stating required permissions or the fate of running jobs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly packed sentences that each add a distinct behavioral or parameter fact. No filler and no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists (request_id is mentioned but need not be described), and the description covers the destructive-mode flag, timer semantics, idle detection, and hooks. The only gap is the undocumented hook_timeout parameter for this 6-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it explains down, idle_minutes (-1 to disable), wait_for (with enumerated values and default), and hook. However, hook_timeout is left undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one meaningful parameter unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set an autostop timer for a cluster") and immediately clarifies the resulting lifecycle behavior. This is clearly distinct from siblings like cluster_stop, cluster_down, or tail_autostop_logs, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 explains what happens when the tool is invoked but never states when to prefer it over cluster_stop or cluster_down, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the semantics of the parameters rather than an explicit when/when-not routing.

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