matrix_inverse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies what happens with non-square or singular input but never states the failure mode, numeric precision, or whether results are exact or floating point—real concerns for a numeric inverse.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its input constraints are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is simple with one parameter. However, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description should still say more about error behavior for singular matrices to be fully sufficient.

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% for the single 'matrix' parameter, so the description is the only source of constraint. It adds the square/non-singular requirement, which is genuinely useful semantics, but says nothing about the expected nesting (list of row lists) or orientation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Return the inverse of ... matrix') and constrains the domain to square, non-singular inputs, which cleanly separates it from matrix_transpose, matrix_multiply, and matrix_determinant. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 square/non-singular precondition implicitly tells the agent which inputs are valid, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus matrix_determinant, solve_linear_system, or matrix_transpose. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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