legal_ediscovery

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

Without annotations, the description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or its side effects. The action name 'ediscovery' suggests a read-heavy operation, but this is not confirmed.

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 plus parameter docs. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide context about the tool's purpose and return values. It does not explain what ediscovery does, leaving a significant gap in understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This explains what the parameters are but lacks examples, constraints, or specific usage details.

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 ediscovery' but does not explain what ediscovery accomplishes. The verb 'run' is vague, and the tool's purpose remains unclear. It lacks a clear verb-resource description.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to use, when not to use, or any alternative tools.

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