grc_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating/non-read operation. The description adds that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what the action actually does to the domain, what side effects may occur, whether it plans and then executes downstream actions, or what the output schema represents. The behavior beyond 'run an agent action' remains opaque.

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 front-loaded with the action being run. The routing context and Args section are concise. However, the Args section is thin and could include more meaningful guidance without bloating the description much. It earns a 4 because it is tight and structured, not a 5 because it omits actionable detail while being sparse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema but no schema parameter descriptions, 0% coverage, and a destructive annotation, the description should explain what this action does, what outputs are returned, and what to pass in. The description only says to run the action and that it routes through the dispatcher. For a tool with two free-form fields and an output schema, this is incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the output means, what a valid 'message' looks like, or what structured inputs are acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining the parameters. The description says 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds minimal meaning: it defines message as the objective but does not explain what kind of objective or how to format it; it defines inputs as an optional JSON string but does not specify what structured inputs are expected, their shape, allowed keys, or examples. Without any schema descriptions or examples, the agent cannot determine how to build a valid inputs payload.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the grc domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence' and mentions routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools across domains, but the verb and domain prefix in the name and description make the core purpose clear.

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 doesn't mention that it is a generic domain-agent planning action, when a user should choose it over domain-specific tools like grc_risk_register_scan or grc_compliance_audit, or what kind of message/inputs are appropriate. The context of 'grc domain agent' is implied but no selection criteria are given.

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