legal_breach_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions routing under JWT scope but does not describe side effects, whether data is modified, or what the action entails. The agent cannot determine if this tool is read-only or mutative.

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 uses a bulleted list for parameters, making it easy to scan. However, it could be more informative without adding length.

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 complexity of the legal domain and numerous sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's relationship to other legal actions, expected outcomes, or provide examples. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it does not specify the expected structure of 'inputs' or any constraints, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates but remains basic.

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 that this tool runs the legal domain agent action 'breach_response' and routes through the platform's dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'breach_response' actually does, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. This is somewhat vague but still conveys a specific resource and action.

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 like 'legal_privacy_incident_response_loop' or other legal tools. The description lacks context for tool selection, which is critical given the large number of sibling tools.

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