legal_nda_packet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the action is 'Generate' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., does it create records, send emails, or just produce output?), nor does it disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavioral nuances like how the side letter decision is made.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence outlining the packet, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. No unnecessary words, though the args list could be integrated more naturally. Front-loaded purpose is effective.

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 4 parameters and output schema presence, description covers basic semantics but lacks details on output format, when side letter is 'if needed', and any storage behavior. The counterparty requirement contradiction leaves ambiguity. Adequate but incomplete for full autonomous 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (no field descriptions in JSON schema), so description adds value by explaining each parameter: variant lists options, counterparty is named, term_months is 'Confidentiality term length'. However, counterparty is described as required but schema has default null with anyOf null, creating a contradiction that reduces clarity.

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 the tool generates a complete NDA packet, listing specific components (NDA, side letter, intake form, executive summary), and distinguishes it from sibling legal tools like contract review or agreement packets by focusing on NDA generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like legal_employment_agreement_packet or legal_contract_review. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to choose this over other legal packet generators.

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