legal_knowledge_assistant

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that execution is scoped to the caller's JWT, tenant, and company, which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential side effects or whether the action can have external impact beyond that scope.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and focused args documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text or repetition of schema fields.

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 tool with two loosely specified parameters, no schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. It fails to explain what kinds of objectives or inputs are valid, how it differs from other legal-domain and dispatcher tools, or what the action is for; the output schema may cover return values, but not invocation choices.

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?

The description explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, which adds meaning beyond their schema titles (Message/Inputs). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not specify the expected structure of the JSON, valid keys, or how message and inputs combine, leaving substantial ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action `knowledge_assistant`' and explains that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher. However, it never says what the knowledge_assistant action actually does, so an agent can distinguish it from the many legal_* siblings only by name and routing mechanism.

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?

There is no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives such as legal_contract_review, legal_compliance_monitoring, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description implies the agent should use it to run a specific action but provides no criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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