Deterministic traceability matrix

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive; the description aligns by saying it writes and returns a matrix. It adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that statuses come only from the local graph and gap-fill ledger and that no LLM calls occur, though it does not discuss file overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and avoids repetition. The status enumeration is compact and relevant.

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?

It explains the tool's purpose and status provenance, but with no output schema it does not fully describe the returned matrix structure or how writing to output_path interacts with the return value. The six optional parameters are documented in the schema, so the main missing context is output and sibling-routing behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description does not clarify limit, format, workspace, output_path, or base_ref, and its status labels do not exactly match the status-filter examples in the schema, potentially creating some ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Write and return a deterministic Requirements Traceability Matrix.' It distinguishes the tool as deterministic and non-LLM, but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as orangepro_export_evidence_pack or orangepro_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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Write and return a deterministic Requirements Traceability Matrix' and the 'No LLM calls' constraint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related reporting or export siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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