sideboard_matrix

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool auto-detects top matchups from metagame data or uses a provided list, which is behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose and the second adding essential details about the matrix content and auto-detection. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the output (IN/OUT/FLEX matrix) but lacks details on the format or structure of the matrix. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it only reiterates the auto-detection behavior for the matchups parameter.

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 generates a sideboard matrix for a deck, showing which sideboard cards come IN/OUT/FLEX for each matchup. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sideboard_guide by specifying it produces a matrix format with auto-detection of matchups.

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 implies usage when you have a decklist and sideboard and want to see matchup-specific sideboard plans. It mentions auto-detection of matchups or providing a custom list, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sideboard_guide 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.