finance_goal_replan

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not state whether the action is mutating, idempotent, or has side effects. The word 'replan' implies changes, but this is not confirmed.

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 short and includes essential information (scope, parameters). However, the sentence about routing through the dispatcher could be considered implementation detail and may not be necessary for an agent to use the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description fails to provide context on how this tool fits into the goal lifecycle (e.g., when to replace an existing plan) and does not mention any side effects or required prerequisites.

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 explains both parameters: message as free-text objective and inputs as optional JSON structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 it runs a finance domain agent action named 'goal_replan', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like finance_goal_plan or finance_goal_understand, leaving ambiguity about what 'replan' specifically entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not the use case.

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