engineering_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The description does not contradict the annotations, which include destructiveHint=true. However, it gives no indication of side effects or behavioral outcomes beyond saying 'Run the action', so transparency is limited to what the 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear action statement, routing context, and per-parameter explanations. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 is adequate for a simple wrapper but lacks usage context, expected behavior, and any note about side effects or output interpretation. It does not fully equip an agent to choose or invoke this tool confidently among many similar dispatcher actions.

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 adds some meaning by explaining message as the free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, but it does not provide detailed formats, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is only partial compensation.

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 states that the tool runs the engineering domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence` and routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. It identifies the specific action and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar domain-agent 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brain_plan_domain_intelligence or dispatch_domain_agent. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, not usage context or selection criteria.

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