finance_treasury_runway_dashboard

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds modest context by noting the action runs through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, plus distinguishing message as free-text and inputs as optional JSON. However, it does not disclose what side effects the underlying action may have or any caution implied by destructiveHint.

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 compact and uses a clear Args structure; there is no obvious padding. The opening line is somewhat tautological with the tool name, and the routing detail could arguably be merged, but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding to call it: it does not define the action's objective, what to put in inputs, or how to distinguish it from sibling finance tools. An agent would be guessing at the 'free-text objective' needed to get a meaningful runway dashboard response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to compensate, but it only labels message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. That is near-circular and does not tell an agent what structured fields the treasury runway action expects, what a valid objective looks like, or how the two parameters interact.

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's first sentence, 'Run the finance domain agent action `treasury_runway_dashboard`', essentially restates the tool name rather than defining what the action accomplishes. It identifies the domain (finance) and the routing mechanism, but an agent cannot tell that this produces a runway dashboard view or what user objective it addresses.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many finance/treasury siblings such as finance_treasury_support, finance_treasury_risk_loop, or company_treasury. The routing sentence explains scope but never states the conditions that select this action.

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