Abhidhamma mātikā

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it works offline and that output includes VRI paragraphs and a get_text location, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover pagination or response size.

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 text is front-loaded and compact, with the purpose stated first and the section behavior immediately after. It includes useful details without excessive elaboration, though 'Works offline' is a brief add-on that could be considered peripheral.

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?

For a simple browse tool with complete parameter documentation and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers output format, overview behavior, and offline availability. No output schema exists, so no return-value detail is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents the single section parameter with examples such as 'tika', 'duka', 'suttantika', group names, entry names, and omit-for-overview. The description adds counts and content categories but no new syntax or precedence rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb 'Browse' and resource 'the mātikā (matrix) of the Dhammasaṅgaṇī', enumerates its contents (22 triads, 100 Abhidhamma dyads, 42 Suttanta dyads), and names its Pāli source and output format. It distinguishes itself from generic text tools by noting each entry includes a get_text location.

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?

Describes the default overview behavior when no section is supplied and lists the section categories, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_text, browse_canon, or search_texts. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than stated as guidance.

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