finance_run_cross_domain_scenario

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

The description provides some context about authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope) and that it routes via the dispatcher, but it does not disclose potential side effects or describe what the action actually does beyond being run. Annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, which the description does not contradict but also does not elaborate.

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 purpose statement followed by argument definitions. It avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 brief and does not cover expected outputs, side effects, or when to use this dispatch tool. It assumes knowledge of what 'cross_domain_scenario' entails. Given the tool's generic nature, more context would be helpful.

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 string with structured inputs. This adds meaning since the schema provides no descriptions. However, it lacks detail on the expected structure of the JSON or any 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 clearly states the tool's function: running the finance domain agent action 'run_cross_domain_scenario'. It also mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher, which distinguishes it from direct tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other dispatch tools like 'dispatch_domain_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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or examples. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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