coding_plan_domain_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens when the action runs (e.g., asynchronous vs synchronous). Very limited behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise (3 sentences plus args) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some structural improvements (e.g., clearer separation of usage vs parameters) could help.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks context about what plan_domain_intelligence actually produces or how it fits into the broader domain agent workflow. The tool name implies a planning role but the description does not elaborate, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of its purpose and effects.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. No examples, constraints, or expected formats are given. This is barely sufficient to understand what to pass.

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 identifies the verb ('Run') and the specific resource ('coding domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the domain as 'coding', while siblings like 'commerce_plan_domain_intelligence' or 'content_plan_domain_intelligence' are separate 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 provided on when to use this tool versus other coding domain tools (e.g., coding_chat, coding_explain_code). The description only states how it routes through the dispatcher, not the scenarios or prerequisites for invocation.

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