scan_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only scan, and it adds context about surfacing unanswered rows and row indices, but it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, error conditions, or whether any navigation occurs.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, usage directive second, and a terse parameter list. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 3-optional-parameter scan tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meanings. It leaves minor ambiguity about how tab selection resolves when both tab_id and url_pattern are omitted, but the output schema handles return-value details.

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 0%, but the description defines all three parameters with meaningful distinctions: tab_id as exact ID, url_pattern as regex, and selector as an override. It does not explain precedence or interactions between the optional parameters, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the matrix/grid questions on a page and which rows are unanswered.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from fill_matrix by naming fill_matrix as the follow-up action.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before fill_matrix to see the shape of the question and to confirm the row indices.' This tells the agent the intended context, though it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use it.

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