legal_cookie_audit

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

Annotations carry the risk profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) and the description does not contradict them. The description adds modest contextual value by disclosing the routing path and JWT/tenant/company scoping, but says nothing about what executing the audit does, side effects, or how results surface. It also leaves the odd tension between the 'audit' name and destructiveHint=true unexplored.

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 lean and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by routing context and a two-item argument list. The only blemish is the 'Args:' headers, which read like a code docstring rather than a tool description, but every sentence otherwise carries meaning.

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?

With two simple parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to document return values. It covers what the tool does at a dispatch level and the built-in wrappers fully document message and inputs. What is missing is what the agents actually accomplishes from the agent's standpoint, but for a thin pass-through wrapper this is an adequate minimum.

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 must carry the meaning. It adds that message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is real value over the fields 'Message' and 'Inputs'. However, it gives no guidance on the expected JSON shape or how message and inputs interact within the agent action, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Run the legal domain agent action cookie_audit' — which distinguishes it from direct legal siblings like legal_matter_intake. However, it never states what a cookie audit actually does or produces, so the agent must infer the purpose from the action name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only context is routing mechanics ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which is transport information, not decision guidance. With a sibling named dispatch_domain_agent present, the absence of a distinction is a notable gap.

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