legal_horizon_scan

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

Annotation is absent, and the description provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under scope but does not disclose side effects, destructive nature, rate limits, or whether it is a read or write operation. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 and well-structured: a clear opening line, routing context, and bullet-like args. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool. It lacks clarity on the action's purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. The two optional parameters are explained minimally. Given the complexity of a domain agent action, more context is needed.

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 partially compensates by naming the parameters and stating 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning but lacks details on expected format 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 clearly states it runs a specific legal domain agent action 'horizon_scan', distinguishing it from sibling tools like legal_horizon_digest and legal_horizon_subscribe by emphasizing it triggers an action rather than digests or subscriptions. However, it does not explain what a horizon scan does, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It does not mention scenarios like 'use for active scanning' or 'prefer this over legal_horizon_digest when you need to trigger a new scan'. The description only covers routing mechanics.

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