build_comparison_matrix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: the tool rejects binary Yes/No tables, which is a rejection behavior. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, output format details beyond 'metrics & schema', or any operational constraints (e.g., permissions, rate limits). The disclosure is partial but meaningful.

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 with two clauses, front-loading the core purpose and immediately following with a critical exclusion. It has zero waste and is highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned table looks like. It mentions 'with metrics & schema' but doesn't elaborate on the schema's structure or format. The input parameters are simple, but without an output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity about the returned object. It is adequate for a simple generation tool but not fully complete.

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 67% (tableName and parameters have descriptions, solutions does not). The description adds context by mentioning 'metrics & schema', which hints at the nature of parameters (metrics) and the output structure. However, it doesn't clarify the 'solutions' parameter or provide syntax details beyond the schema. The added value is marginal, so a baseline 3 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 states a specific action ('Generates empirical comparison tables'), identifies the resource (comparison tables), and explicitly disambiguates by rejecting binary Yes/No checkmark tables. This is a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from the unrelated siblings.

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 includes a clear exclusion: 'Rejects binary Yes/No checkmark tables.' This tells the agent when not to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'Use for empirical data'). The exclusion is a useful guidance but lacks positive context or alternative tool references.

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