legal_dpia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing via the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate side effects, performance characteristics, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. The agent cannot assess potential impacts of invocation.

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 at three sentences and front-loads the primary action. The middle sentence about routing could be considered extraneous, but does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but given the tool likely triggers a complex legal process (DPIA), it omits crucial context like what constitutes a valid objective, how outputs are structured (despite having an output schema), and any prerequisites. This leaves the agent underinformed for effective invocation.

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 provides clear semantics for each parameter: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default information. However, it lacks detail on expected JSON structure or constraints.

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 'Run the legal domain agent action `dpia`' which clearly identifies the tool's primary function: executing a specific legal action. The acronym 'dpia' is typical in legal contexts (likely Data Protection Impact Assessment) but not expanded, which slightly reduces clarity for unfamiliar agents.

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 other legal tools like legal_breach_response or legal_contract_review. The description only states what the tool does without any context on use cases or alternatives.

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