brain_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The description does not disclose any side effects, return values, or downstream consequences of executing the action. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher, which is an internal mechanism rather than behavioral impact.

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 very concise, with two short sentences plus a compact argument list. It follows a clear pattern and contains no redundant or verbose content, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description omits any information about the output schema, even though one exists, and does not explain what happens after the action runs. While it mentions the execution scope, it lacks sufficient context about expected results or error conditions.

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?

The description provides minimal explanations for each parameter ('free-text objective' and 'optional JSON string'), but they are generic and lack specifics about expected content, format, or constraints. Since the schema has zero descriptions, the description carries the entire burden but does so inadequately.

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 restates the tool name without explaining what `plan_domain_intelligence` actually does or what outcome it produces. It is clear the tool runs an action, but the purpose remains vague and does not distinguish it from similar brain-related tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like brain_ask, brain_chat, or other domain agent actions. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scope is about authorization routing, not usage conditions.

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