customer_success_cs_agentic_plan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds some security context, but does not disclose whether the action modifies data, has side effects, or what the return value indicates. 'Run' implies execution but lacks behavioral detail.

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 with a clear parameter list. It front-loads the action name and includes a brief explanation of the routing mechanism. No redundant sentences, though the purpose could be strengthened.

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 tool's complexity as a wrapper for a domain agent action, the description lacks explanation of what the agentic plan does, when to invoke it, and what to expect from the output (despite an output schema existing). The agent is left guessing the tool's value.

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 compensates by explaining 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. While better than nothing, the explanations are minimal and do not specify the expected format, constraints, or examples for the JSON inputs.

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 states it runs the customer_success domain agent action `cs_agentic_plan` using free-text objective, but does not explain what the plan does or its overall purpose. The tool is clearly a runner/dispatcher, but lacks specificity on the action's function, making it somewhat ambiguous for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other customer_success tools. The description only describes how it works (routing through dispatcher) but not the context or prerequisites for invocation. Missing alternatives or exclusions.

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