legal_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The description provides no behavioral detail beyond the annotations. Given destructiveHint is true, the lack of any mention of side effects or changes is a missed opportunity. The name 'plan' suggests a read-only action, creating ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 well-structured, with only two sentences and an args list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though a bit more specificity could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

The description is not complete enough to understand when or why to call this tool. It lacks information about expected output, side effects, or how it differs from the sibling planning tools. For an agent, this would require additional context from elsewhere.

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 gives brief explanations for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, but it is minimal and does not explain what the inputs JSON should contain or how the objective is used.

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 it runs a legal domain agent action named `plan_domain_intelligence`, which identifies the domain and action but does not explain what the action does or what 'domain intelligence' planning entails. It is not tautological enough to be a 1, but it leaves the actual purpose vague.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like `brain_plan_domain_intelligence` or `dispatch_domain_agent`. The only additional info is about routing through the dispatcher, which does not help select the right tool for a task.

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