Add, multiply, transpose, or calculate the determinant of 2D matrices by selecting an operation and providing the needed matrix inputs.
Perform matrix operations: add, multiply, transpose, or determinant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matrix_a | Yes | First matrix (2D number array). | |
| matrix_b | No | Second matrix (for add/multiply). | |
| operation | No | Operation: add, multiply, transpose, determinant. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about error behavior for dimension mismatches, whether matrix_b is required for add/multiply, or how determinant/transpose (single-matrix ops) interact with the one required parameter. For a pure-computation tool this is a notable gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the operation list front-loaded and no wasted words. It is well-sized for the task, though it offers no structural elaboration beyond the enumeration.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a bare list-of-operations description, the definition is adequate but thin: it never clarifies which parameters are conditional on the chosen operation or what the result looks like. A simple math tool needs only modest context, but the conditional-parameter relationship is left entirely implicit.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (matrix_a, matrix_b, operation) are already documented in the schema, including the 'for add/multiply' note on matrix_b. The description adds no syntax, format, or shape details beyond what the schema already conveys, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (perform) and resource (matrix operations) and enumerates the supported operations (add, multiply, transpose, determinant), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent math siblings like matrix_inverse, matrix_rank, or matrix_decomp that a caller might reasonably confuse it with.
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 lists available operations but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over matrix_inverse, dot_product, or cross_product, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the enum of operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.