sideboard_matrix

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral details: it shows IN/OUT/FLEX assignments and auto-detects matchups, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 cover purpose, output, and key behavior (auto-detection vs manual list). No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's function and parameters, though it does not describe the output format in detail (only mentions matrix with IN/OUT/FLEX). Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail could be beneficial, but it remains 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 generates a sideboard matrix showing IN/OUT/FLEX cards per matchup, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_sideboard (which suggests sideboard cards) and sideboard_guide (a general guide).

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 explains when to provide matchups vs auto-detecting from metagame data, giving good context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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