bowire.contract.matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is read-only/local, that it does not contact providers, and where the data comes from. It omits edge behavior such as what is returned when no results exist or when results are stale, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the read/roll-up action, and the second sentence is spent on the return shape that would otherwise be undocumented. No filler.

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 zero-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description compensates by inlining the full return structure (cells, statuses, failures, summary) and the data source. Only failure/empty-state behavior is left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies.

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+resource: reads contract-verification results under .bowire/contract-results and rolls them into a consumer x provider matrix. It also anchors the output to a known artifact (workbench Contracts rail, `bowire contract matrix` CLI), so an agent can tell this apart from generic siblings like bowire.report.rollup or bowire.assert.

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?

It gives clear context for use: data must have been written by `bowire contract verify`, and it clarifies the tool is purely local and never calls a provider itself. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not-to-use (e.g. use verify to produce fresh results first), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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