legal_horizon_scan

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

Annotations mark this as destructive and open-world, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, external actions, or long-running behavior. The only behavioral addition is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is more about mechanism than consequence.

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, structured, and easy to parse. The Args section is front-loaded and the routing sentence is the only mildly extraneous addition.

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?

For a destructive, open-world tool with free-form parameters and no required fields, the description provides too little guidance for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing semantics of the action and its parameters make this definition incomplete for an agent that must decide when and how to call it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds one useful line for each parameter: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. But it stops there, providing no guidance on valid input structure, how the two parameters interact, or what the action expects in the JSON string.

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 identifies a specific action ('Run the legal domain agent action horizon_scan') and a legal-domain context, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never states what a horizon scan actually accomplishes or returns, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from its name and sibling tools.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as legal_horizon_subscribe, legal_horizon_digest, or dispatch_domain_agent. The routing/scoping sentence explains mechanics but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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