engineering_run_clash_analysis

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

The description adds that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under the user's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which provides some operational context. However, it does not describe side effects or outcomes beyond the action name, and the destructiveHint annotation is not elaborated in the text.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and two parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 lacks context about what 'clash analysis' entails, potential prerequisites, or typical use cases. It is not sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool without additional domain knowledge.

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 explicitly defines both parameters: `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This clarifies the expected usage for each parameter, even though the schema itself has no descriptions.

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 the tool runs an engineering domain agent action called `run_clash_analysis`. The verb 'Run' is clear and the action name is specific, but the description does not explain what 'clash analysis' means, leaving some ambiguity for a new agent.

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. It does not mention any scenarios or conditions that would indicate this tool is appropriate, nor does it point to related tools for similar tasks.

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