get_matrix

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. "Return" implies a read with no side effects, and the required ordering before start_session is useful behavioral context, but nothing is said about idempotency, cost, or whether the matrix changes over time — gaps that a no-annotation tool arguably should fill.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the timing constraint. 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?

With no params and no output schema, the description must orient the agent itself, and it does say the return includes selector questions. It stops short of describing the matrix's shape or how the selector questions should be answered, which would help without an output schema.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to fetch the matrix.

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?

Names a specific verb (Return) and resource (scope and situation matrix with its selector questions), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It references start_session, but does not differentiate from other getters in the sibling list such as get_status or get_process_step.

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?

"Call this before start_session" gives explicit ordering guidance that an agent can act on. There is no when-not guidance or mention of other alternatives, but for a zero-arg getter the sequencing cue covers the main decision.

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