smarthome_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some authorization context. However, it does not disclose what the action does (e.g., side effects, data access, required permissions) beyond the vague name. No annotations exist to compensate.

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 (two brief paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action and routing context. However, it could be better structured by separating purpose, usage, and parameters more clearly.

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 (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description lacks completeness for a tool that is part of a broad pattern. It does not explain the overarching 'plan_domain_intelligence' concept or how this tool fits into the smarthome domain, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 add value. It describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which is slightly more informative than the bare schema but still lacks detail on expected format or content.

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 specific domain agent action and mentions routing through the dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually does, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many similar `*_plan_domain_intelligence` siblings across other domains.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools with identical structure (e.g., coding_plan_domain_intelligence, finance_plan_domain_intelligence), the absence of selection criteria 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.