autopilot

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it writes to disk, overwrites existing files, requires only a valid instance_id, and returns both the generated content and file path. This offers complete transparency for a potentially destructive write operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes necessary details without fluff. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds distinct value (behavior, return values, usage alternatives). Minor redundancy in listing editor targets could be trimmed.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains return values (string content and path), overwrite behavior, and style options. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing what is returned.

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 value by explaining the effect of the 'style' parameter ('style='minimal' for just the three hooks; style='full' for the complete ruleset with examples') and provides context for editor enum values through the overall purpose.

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: generating a CLAUDE.md or copilot-instructions.md configuration file. It uses specific verbs ('generate', 'writes') and distinguishes it from sibling tool 'setup_ai_memory' by naming an alternative use case.

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 mentions when to use an alternative tool ('Use setup_ai_memory instead if you want an interactive one-shot setup that also creates an instance') and states 'No auth required beyond a valid instance_id'. It provides clear context but could be more explicit about when not to use this tool.

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