Build a cross-mapping matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent that the tool returns an empty template rather than a filled map, and it discloses the auxiliary content (legend, how to fill, how to interpret). No mutation or side effects are implied.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the three use cases before listing output components. The bilingual duplication is justified by the lang parameter, and there is no filler or irrelevant context.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will receive: an empty matrix, legend, fill instructions, and reading guidance. It does not explicitly state that rows and columns from the parameters populate the matrix, but the schema already defines those parameters, so the calling contract is sufficiently 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 100%, and the schema already documents the kind enum, rows, columns, and lang parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the exact output: an empty Markdown matrix, legend, fill instructions, and reading guidance. It also scopes the tool to three specific cross-mapping kinds, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like diagram_capability_map or draft_capability_map.

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 clearly states the usage context: capability × value stream, capability × organisation, or capability × application. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the conditions for use are clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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