enforcement_matrix

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description supplements this by detailing the specific information shown (stats, checks, ledger), providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation alone. No contradictions.

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?

A single, self-contained sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and content. It is front-loaded with the core action 'Show the full Enforcement Matrix' and then lists components without extraneous detail.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema or nested objects, the description adequately lists the three main components. However, it does not hint at the response format or pagination, which could be inferred but is not explicit. Still, it provides sufficient context for basic understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific meaning. With 100% schema coverage (vacuously true), baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 shows the full Enforcement Matrix, listing specific components: feedback pipeline stats, active pre-action checks, and rejection ledger with revival conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feedback_stats or gate_stats by indicating it provides a comprehensive view.

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 usage is implied as viewing the full matrix, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as feedback_stats or prevention_rules. The lack of parameters suggests a simple retrieval, but no when-not or contextual alternatives are mentioned.

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