decision_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one non-obvious trait: empty inputs yield a template rather than an error. It says nothing about what the scoring output looks like, how mismatched array lengths are handled, or whether weights are validated — gaps that matter for a computation-only tool.

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 tight sentences with the core mechanic front-loaded and the invocation shortcut second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema means the description must stand in for a lot. It covers the input contract loosely but never indicates the return value (scores per option, ranking, winner) or what the 'template' fallback actually produces, leaving the agent guessing about results.

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 coverage is 50%: weights and question are documented inline, while options and criteria are not. The description compensates by implying options/criteria are parallel arrays and can be omitted for a template, but it leaves ambiguous whether 'equal-length' means options, criteria and weights must all match, which the schema only states for weights-vs-criteria.

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 and resource ('Score options against weighted criteria') and the goal ('pick objectively'), so the mechanics are unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling frameworks (swot_analysis, lean_canvas, marketing_mix), which would be needed for a 5.

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 clause 'Pass equal-length arrays or leave blank for template' tells the agent how to invoke it in two modes, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when this framework is the right choice versus swot_analysis or lean_canvas, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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