hr_plan_domain_intelligence

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope (authentication context) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, or produces side effects. The behavior of the underlying 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 short (two sentences plus Args list), directly states the action, and front-loads the verb. Every sentence serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is complex (domain agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant scope) and has an output schema, the description lacks details about return values, intended outcomes, and typical use cases. The parameter descriptions are insufficient for full understanding. Essential context is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds needed meaning. It labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is helpful but minimal; it does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples.

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 an HR domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence' and routes through a dispatcher. It specifies the domain (HR) and the action name, but does not explain what planning domain intelligence actually accomplishes. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about the action's outcome.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other plan_domain_intelligence tools for different domains. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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