legalpass_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It hints at safety ('guardrails', 'safe run envelope') but lacks specifics on auth, rate limits, error behavior, or what exactly the planning produces. Insufficient disclosure for a non-trivial tool.

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 efficient sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states core function; second adds essential context about scaffolding. Could be slightly more structured but achieves conciseness.

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 4 parameters, nested target, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, nor how the planning result is used with other LegalPass tools. Missing key context for an AI agent.

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 high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description mentions target types already in schema but adds no further meaning for pack_id, profile, or jurisdictions. No parameter elaboration beyond schema.

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 verb 'Plan' and the resource 'LegalPass issue-spotting run', specifying target types (URL, contract upload, repo). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining it is scaffold-only, with full execution in a later engine chip.

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 implies this tool is for initial planning ('scaffold-only') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like legalpass_verdict or other pass tools. No exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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