inspect_utility_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no mutation, no network, and lists return components. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple inspection tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, direct and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, and safety.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its purpose, return content, and safety. An output schema is present, so return values need not be fully detailed. The description is adequate but could mention that the session must exist.

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 for the only parameter (session_id). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its role from the tool name and context. This is a gap given the description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 returns the Nash scoring state including utility vectors, equilibrium states, and selected winner. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Nash scoring state'), and is distinct from sibling tools that modify or manage sessions.

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 explicitly notes 'Read-only (no engine mutation, no network)', which indicates when it is safe to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use it versus other tools, but the safe nature is clear.

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