compute_crossed_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Never persists,' which is a strong side-effect disclosure, and it explains that the crossed verdict appears only when an observer is supplied. It could be more precise about what happens when observer is omitted, but it is not misleading.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the output structure, then states the non-persistence behavior and intended use case. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested observer input, and no output schema, the description is reasonably informative but not fully complete. It explains the main outputs and use case, yet leaves ambiguity about whether the matrix is still returned when observer is omitted and does not describe the shape of the verdicts or matrix rows.

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 only 14%, and the description does not compensate by explaining stage, lensScores, sector, stageProbabilities, or the other parameters. The phrase 'same input as compute_dealbreakers_v2' provides a reference, but that alone is insufficient when most parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 what the tool returns: substrate verdict, crossed verdict when an observer is supplied, and a 5-row archetype verdict matrix. It also differentiates from compute_dealbreakers_v2 by noting the same input but different output, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling.

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 gives clear usage context: it is meant for the dashboard 'view as [archetype]' dropdown and for previewing a verdict before committing. It names compute_dealbreakers_v2 as a same-input sibling but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool instead of that one.

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