matter_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the special behavior of including unclassified documents and the rationale behind it. It does not mention side effects, but as a report tool, read-only behavior is implied, and the description does not contradict any 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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the main purpose, the second adds a clarifying nuance. There is no fluff, and each sentence 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?

For a simple zero-parameter report tool, the description covers everything needed: what it reports, the special case of unclassified documents, and the rationale. The presence of an output schema handles return format, so nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are present, so this is appropriate. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the matter'), and enumerates the exact contents covered: documents, classification, units, and cells filled per table. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like table_describe or matter_open, which focus on different aspects.

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 a clear use case: to obtain an overview of a matter's holdings, and explicitly notes that it reports unclassified documents because no table can see them. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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