check_matter

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a 'lint', implying a read-only analysis, but does not specify whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or how results are presented. The existence of an output schema helps but the description itself lacks behavioral context.

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, well-crafted sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete, but it does not explain what the output represents or provide any examples of checks performed. For a lint tool with zero parameters, it could be more thorough in describing what 'Matter-readiness' entails.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema trivially covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score 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 performs a lint check for Matter-readiness, specifying it checks which controllable functions round-trip to a Matter cluster. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dpt or check_energy, though it could be more explicit about what 'controllable functions' refers to.

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 implies usage when assessing Matter compatibility but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_dpt or check_naming. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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