decode_matrix

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavioral nuance by explaining that both storage orders are attempted and that flexible separators are accepted. This tells the agent how robust the tool is without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting input-format guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant information or filler.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers input format, float count, and storage-order handling, which are the main invocation requirements. Minor gaps remain around the optional label parameter and explicit sibling differentiation, but overall the tool is sufficiently specified.

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 description thoroughly explains the required 'values' parameter: exactly 16 floats, whitespace/comma/newline separated, paste-friendly from raw memory or shaders. However, the optional 'label' parameter is never described, and the schema gives no description either, so its purpose remains ambiguous despite its default value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Decode 16 floats as a 4x4 matrix' and enumerates the decoded fields (FOV, near/far, handedness, camera position). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_matrices or track_camera, which search or track rather than decode a raw float buffer.

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 concrete usage context: paste numbers from a memory dump, Cheat Engine watch, or shader constant, and the tool accepts multiple separator formats. It also removes a common prerequisite by noting that both row- and column-major storage orders are tried. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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