legal_plan_domain_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool routes through a dispatcher but does not describe whether the action is destructive, read-only, or its side effects. Information on output or consequences is absent.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument list could be structured as bullets for readability, but the current form is efficient and free of redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits any mention of return values or outcomes. For an agent action with complex behavior, the lack of output description and minimal behavioral context leaves the description incomplete. The tool also has no required parameters, increasing the need for clarity on what the action does.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies the parameters' purpose beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 specifies 'Run the legal domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`', providing a clear verb and resource. The domain prefix (legal) distinguishes it from sibling tools in other domains. However, it does not elaborate on what 'plan_domain_intelligence' entails in the legal context.

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?

The description mentions routing through platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The existence of many sibling 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools for other domains provides implicit context, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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