enforcement_matrix

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds value by listing the matrix components but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, performance implications, or the structure of the returned data.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Show'. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose by listing the four components. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns, though it could be slightly more specific about the output format.

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 input schema is fully covered (100% schema description coverage). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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' with specific components (feedback pipeline stats, active pre-action checks, rejection ledger, revival conditions). The verb 'Show' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'feedback_stats' and 'gate_stats'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'feedback_stats', 'gate_stats', or 'prevention_rules'. The description lacks explicit context about when it is appropriate or not to invoke this tool.

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