legal_cookie_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, which hints at authentication requirements but does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavior beyond routing is 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 concise with two sentences for the main purpose and two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Adequately efficient.

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 that the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is very minimal; it does not provide enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool (e.g., typical use cases, data involved, expected outcome). The tool acts as a wrapper, but the agent needs more context to use it correctly.

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%, and the description adds minimal semantic value: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This only restates the types (string, string) without explaining what kind of objective or format of inputs is expected. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 name 'legal_cookie_audit' and description 'Run the legal domain agent action cookie_audit' indicate it performs a cookie audit in the legal domain. However, it does not clarify what a 'cookie audit' entails (e.g., scanning for compliance, reporting issues) or how it differs from other legal tools like 'legal_compliance_monitoring' or 'legal_privacy_incident_response_loop'. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing through dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying it requires authentication and is scoped, but does not state when to choose this over sibling tools or any prerequisites.

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