support_matrix

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: it aggregates from a test-run ledger, joins derived maturity levels, defines the 'fail' status for all live attempts failed, and clarifies that absence of a row means unverified. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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 information-dense with no wasted words. It leads with the core purpose, then explains provenance, adds necessary caveats, defines special status values, and notes filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is logical.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics: status 'fail', never_exercised list, derived maturity level, and the meaning of absent rows. It also gives source context and safety caveats. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the exact output shape or how filters combine, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool 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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its three optional parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful filter semantics: filters are case-insensitive and product matches as a substring. However, it does not clarify how vendor and firmware_version are matched (e.g., exact vs substring) or how multiple filters combine, leaving a partial gap.

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 exactly what the tool does: reports what has been exercised on real hardware per device+firmware+capability. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is read-only, offline, and makes no device call, unlike tools such as healthcheck or ssh_exec.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: checking hardware-compatibility evidence before relying on a capability. It gives cautionary guidance (never_exercised means mock-only/alpha, confirm destructive steps) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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