trace_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor what 'reviewed and accepted' status filtering entails. It adds only a thin filter semantic (accepted links only) and says nothing about scope or freshness of the matrix.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the key qualifier 'Reviewed and accepted'. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and zero parameters keep the call surface trivial. However, the description leaves the action and scope of the matrix unstated, which is a real gap for an agent deciding between this and coverage_gaps.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already implies.

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 phrase 'Reviewed and accepted links: requirement id -> classes' conveys the data the tool exposes (a requirement-to-class mapping) but contains no verb or explicit action, so an agent must infer that this is a lookup/retrieval. The 'reviewed and accepted' qualifier does distinguish it from propose_link, but only indirectly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like coverage_gaps or get_requirement, and no stated prerequisites. The only implied usage cue is that it returns accepted rather than proposed links.

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