engineering_plan_domain_intelligence

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (authorization context) but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or output behavior. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 with two sentences plus two argument lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 and optional parameters, the description does not explain the output, side effects, or what happens when no inputs are provided. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds basic semantics: 'Free-text objective for the action' for `message` and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for `inputs`. This provides partial meaning but lacks detail on expected format or constraints.

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 'Run the engineering domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`' which identifies the action but does not explain what `plan_domain_intelligence` does or what the output is. It vaguely conveys purpose but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like `coding_plan_domain_intelligence`.

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 other domain intelligence planning tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are mentioned.

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