Visualize the stakeholder 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, and it delivers: it explains the quadrant placement, the per-quadrant guidance, the missing-field flagging, the specific conflict categories, the consequence and arbitrer/timing outputs, the source-column legend, the 'N/M 件' counting, and the fallback manual-review guidance. This is unusually complete behavioral transparency.

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 long and bilingual, which adds bulk, but nearly every clause conveys a distinct behavioral fact (conflict types, evidence, fallback, source counting, legend). It is structured and information-dense, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 the tool's high complexity, absence of an output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers outputs, edge cases (no conflicts detected), manual review suggestions, source traceability, and aggregation. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret its result correctly.

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 only parameter, 'lang', has 100% schema description coverage with its enum and bilingual description, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly specifies the resource (stakeholders), the method (influence x interest quadrants), and the concrete deliverables (recommended engagement approach, flagged missing fields, conflict analysis, source counts). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the 'diagram_stakeholder_matrix' sibling, though the analytical detail in the description makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'diagram_stakeholder_matrix' or other analysis tools. The usage context is implied by the output description, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection conditions are stated.

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