legal_trade_secret_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing infrastructure, not side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral details. This is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main action. It uses a clean bullet list for parameters. Every sentence is functional, though it could be improved by adding more value without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema but the description fails to explain what the tool actually accomplishes (register a trade secret? what does that entail?). The description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a specific business function.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal descriptions ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') that add some meaning but are too vague to significantly aid an agent in constructing correct 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?

The description clearly states it runs the 'trade_secret_register' domain agent action, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like legal_breach_response or legal_compliance_monitoring, limiting its purpose clarity slightly.

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. The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative indicators, which is a significant gap.

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