legal_dsar_intake

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 mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT scope, but does not describe effects, side effects, or what the action does (e.g., initiates a process, creates a record). Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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 and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load the core purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not explain what dsar_intake accomplishes, when to invoke it, or how it fits into the legal workflow. For a tool in a specialized legal domain, this is insufficient.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is basic clarification but does not specify 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?

Description states 'Run the legal domain agent action dsar_intake' but does not explain what 'dsar_intake' does. While the name suggests a Data Subject Access Request intake, the description lacks specificity, making it vague for distinguishing from siblings like legal_dsar_fulfill.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling legal tools (e.g., legal_dsar_fulfill, legal_matter_intake) are not referenced, leaving the agent without differentiation.

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