build_evidence_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: structurally_admissible is carried over historically while provenance_valid is re-computed from bound provenance artifacts. However, it never says whether 'build' persists a new artifact, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is read-only or idempotent.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose line. The second sentence, however, is cryptic field-level jargon that only makes sense to someone already familiar with the domain model, so the brevity comes partly from omitted context rather than efficiency.

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 the return shape needn't be described. Still, for a tool whose verb 'build' implies possible mutation, the description omits side effects and workflow placement, leaving the agent without enough to know when to call it versus its siblings.

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 0% and collection_id is never mentioned in the description. 'current-collection-scoped' hints that a collection is the scope but does not explain what collection_id refers to, what format it takes, or whether 'current' implies a caller-context default.

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?

It gives a specific verb (build) and resource (audit matrix) plus a scope (current-collection), so an agent can tell it produces something rather than reads it. But 'audit matrix' is undefined jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from evidence-focused siblings like validate_evidence_assessment or find_evidence.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The relationship to validate_evidence_assessment or run_document_review is left entirely to inference, which is a real gap given how many overlapping evidence tools are in the sibling list.

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