legal_risk_contract_protection_loop

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but omits critical information such as side effects (e.g., whether the loop creates/modifies data), idempotency, or output behavior. The agent cannot assess risks or consequences.

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 and includes a structured 'Args' section, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Every sentence is present, but the content is inadequate for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values or what the tool accomplishes. For a complex loop that likely involves contract risk assessment, the context is severely lacking. The agent cannot understand the tool's full impact or output.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string', which adds minimal meaning. No format, expected values, or examples are provided, leaving the agent uncertain about what constitutes valid inputs.

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?

Description states 'Run the legal domain agent action risk_contract_protection_loop' which is a specific verb-resource pair, but it does not explain what the action does. It fails to distinguish from siblings like legal_contract_review or legal_breach_response, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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