engineering_run_clash_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or output details. The tool's destructive potential or safety profile is not addressed.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action name, no superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place. Highly efficient.

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 role as a domain agent action dispatcher, the description explains routing and parameters but omits output behavior (even though an output schema exists, it is not referenced or summarized). Missing details on error handling, success conditions, or expected side effects. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though depth is limited (no structure for the JSON).

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 it runs the engineering domain agent action 'run_clash_analysis'. It specifies the verb (Run) and resource, and adds context about routing and scope. However, it does not contrast with sibling engineering tools, leaving the agent without explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other engineering tools, dispatch_domain_agent). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about appropriate scenarios.

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