legal_hr_onboarding_packet

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (auth context) but does not describe side effects, destructiveness, error cases, or output format, leaving agents underinformed.

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 efficient, with one sentence for purpose and a bullet-style argument list. It is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., separating behavior from parameters).

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 routing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and authentication context. However, it omits what the generated packet contains, error handling, and fallback behavior, which is needed for fuller situational awareness.

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 must compensate. It explains `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON, adding basic meaning, but lacks details on expected keys, formats, 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?

The description clearly states that the tool runs the legal domain agent action `hr_onboarding_packet` and mentions routing through a dispatcher. It distinguishes the tool as HR-onboarding-specific among many legal and HR sibling tools, though it could be more explicit about the packet content.

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 like `hr_onboard` or `legal_employment_agreement_packet`. Prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are absent.

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