grc_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses routing through a dispatcher and auth scoping (JWT, tenant, company), adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on side effects, success/failure outcomes, or constraints.

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 (three paragraphs) and front-loaded with the action name. It efficiently states the purpose, routing context, and parameters. No unnecessary sentences.

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 does not reference it or explain the action's outcomes. For a tool among many similar domain-specific siblings, more context about what 'domain intelligence' means for GRC is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding meaning beyond parameter names. This is helpful but minimal.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'grc domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', but does not explain what the action accomplishes or how it differs from numerous sibling tools with the same name pattern.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools with identical naming, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is absent.

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