get_collision_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and provides no details about return format, read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects. This is barely above a tautology and lacks meaningful 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns full marks for conciseness.

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 description is minimal and for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out essential context such as the structure of the collision matrix (e.g., a 2D array of booleans), how it relates to physics layers, or any prerequisites. It is barely minimum viable, lacking important surrounding information.

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 input schema shows zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('physics layer collision matrix'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like get_physics_layers, but the addition of 'collision matrix' separates it from simple layer listing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_physics_layers or validate_collision_setup. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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