legal_knowledge_assistant

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only describes routing (dispatcher, scope) but not whether the tool reads or mutates data, or what the 'knowledge_assistant' action entails. No side effects or access requirements are mentioned.

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 but includes extraneous routing details that may not help the agent decide to invoke the tool. It front-loads the basic verb+resource but then spends characters on system mechanics. While not verbose, every sentence does not earn its place.

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 high number of sibling legal tools, the description should clarify what makes this tool unique. It does not provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately. The output schema exists but is not utilized in the description to convey completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal semantics. No examples, constraints, or formatting guidance are provided, leaving the agent uncertain about valid input.

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 knowledge_assistant' but does not explain what the knowledge assistant does. It focuses on routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) rather than the tool's purpose. Sibling tools like legal_contract_review clearly indicate their function; this one is vague and fails to differentiate.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage without direction.

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