legal_litigation_hold_loop

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

The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the action is destructive. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it lacks important information. It is appropriately sized for its content level.

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 existence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the action achieves, what outputs to expect, or how it differs from related tools. The agent lacks key context for correct selection and invocation.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These descriptions are generic and do not clarify expected format or purpose. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description insufficiently compensates.

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 the tool runs the legal domain agent action 'litigation_hold_loop' and routes through a dispatcher, but does not explain what the action does. The purpose is vague and does not distinguish it from siblings like legal_litigation_hold_issue or legal_litigation_hold_release.

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. It does not specify scenarios or prerequisites for invoking this action.

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