hwp_autopilot_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this tool does not call an LLM, saves state to a file (~/.hwp_studio_state), and generates a skeleton. However, it does not mention side effects like file system writes, permissions, or idempotency, which are relevant for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No 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 complexity (9 parameters, integration with other tools, no output schema), the description explains the workflow, file storage, and the role of the returned plan. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to use it in the autopilot pipeline, though details about the plan structure are limited.

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 context that output_path is passed to autopilot_create and session_id ties the steps, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns a structured plan for automatic document generation, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hwp_autopilot_create by explaining the two-step workflow. The verb 'returns' and resource 'structured plan' are specific.

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 the tool is part of an autopilot pipeline: it creates a plan, then Claude host fills content and calls hwp_autopilot_create. It implicitly suggests using this tool before hwp_autopilot_create, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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