coding_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a safe read-only operation. The description adds context about routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose concrete side effects beyond what annotations already imply.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the action being run, then routing scope, then the two arguments. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Args' block could be slightly more descriptive without becoming bloated.

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?

This is a potentially destructive, open-world action with no required parameters, a 0% schema-coverage description, and an output schema, yet the description never explains what the coding action does, when to invoke it, or what the message/inputs should contain. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the core behavioral context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does state that message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which is more than the schema provides. However, it lacks detail on what structured inputs are expected, what formats are valid, or how the two parameters interact, leaving clear gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('the coding domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence'), and the domain ('coding'), which helps distinguish it from the many sibling *_plan_domain_intelligence tools. However, it never explains what the plan_domain_intelligence action actually does or what outcome an agent should expect, so the purpose is clear at the wrapper level but semantically thin.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent, brain_plan_domain_intelligence, or other coding_* tools. The phrase 'coding domain agent action' implies a scoping clue, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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