boj_cartridges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows a matrix but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show the BoJ cartridge matrix') and adds clarifying detail ('protocol x domain grid showing which cartridges serve which protocol/domain combinations'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or output format, which are important since no annotations or output schema exist. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the schema fully covers the input structure.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show the BoJ cartridge matrix — protocol x domain grid showing which cartridges serve which protocol/domain combinations.' It specifies the verb ('Show'), resource ('BoJ cartridge matrix'), and output format ('protocol x domain grid'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'boj_cartridge_info' or 'boj_cartridge_invoke'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'boj_cartridge_info' for detailed cartridge data. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit instructions.

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