dispatch_domain_agent

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states basic operation (dispatching a message). It lacks disclosure of authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or any behavioral traits beyond the surface.

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: one introductory sentence with domain list, then a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It does not explain the response format, but that is handled by the output schema. Slightly more context on what happens after dispatch could improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: domain is 'the domain agent to talk to', message is 'your message or objective', action has a default 'chat', and inputs are 'optional JSON string of additional structured inputs'. This provides clarity beyond the schema, though input format could be more specific.

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 explicitly states 'Dispatch a message to any domain agent on the platform' and lists available domains, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling domain-specific tools (e.g., finance_chat) by being the generic dispatcher.

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 implies usage (to talk to any domain agent) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus direct domain agents or other dispatch tools. No when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.

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