hb_auto_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the call queues rather than executes external backends, implying no external side effects. It falls short on auth requirements, whether the named chain must pre-exist, and how/when effects surface — real gaps for a queue-style mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing leaves the queue-vs-execute nuance slightly opaque.

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 queueing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at follow-up (e.g., hb_auto_status or hb_auto_result to observe progress). It also never resolves the name/behavior tension between 'run' and 'queue', leaving the agent unsure whether this starts work or merely registers it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'chain' and 'input' adequately. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Queue') and resource ('local automation chain plan') and clarifies scope ('without executing external backends'). This distinguishes it well from hb_auto_list_chains/hb_auto_status/hb_auto_result within the hb_auto family, though the 'run' in the name sits oddly against 'queue'.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like hb_plug_run, hb_garden_run, or the other hb_auto tools. The 'without executing external backends' phrase implies a deferred-execution scenario but does not state when to prefer it or what prerequisites exist.

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