legalpass_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'exposes LegalPass guardrails and the safe run envelope', suggesting safety but not detailing side effects, return value, or whether it mutates state. The behavioral disclosure 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states action and targets, the second clarifies scope and mentions guardrails. Every word earns its place.

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 lacking an output schema, the description does not describe what a 'plan' looks like or how it relates to other LegalPass tools (e.g., legalpass_verdict). The mention of 'guardrails and safe run envelope' is too vague. Context is incomplete.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides: it lists target types but does not enrich the meaning of profile or jurisdictions. No extra semantic value is added.

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 the tool plans a LegalPass issue-spotting run against three target types (URL, contract upload, repo). It distinguishes from full execution by noting it is scaffold-only. However, it does not explain what LegalPass or issue-spotting is, assuming familiarity.

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 says 'scaffold-only' and contrasts with full 12-hat execution in a later engine chip, implying this is for planning. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like legalpass_verdict. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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