matrix_compute

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not state valid values for 'operation', expected shapes/errors for mismatched 'a' and 'b', whether strings are parsed expressions, or what is returned. Only the vague input shape hint about 'a' and optional 'b' is conveyed.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and primary parameter front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficiently structured; its problem is thinness of content rather than wordiness.

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 3-parameter compute tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form operation selector, the description is far too sparse. It omits the operation vocabulary, shape constraints, and return behavior — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'a' and 'b' are already visible, and the free-form 'operation' string — the single most important parameter — has no enumeration and no explanation of permitted values anywhere. The agent is left unable to construct a valid call.

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 verb and resource ('perform a dense linear-algebra operation on matrix a'), and the word 'dense' implicitly contrasts with the sibling sparse_compute. However, 'linear-algebra operation' is very broad and the description never names which operations are supported, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually computes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite sparse_compute and other numeric siblings existing. The optional 'b' is noted in passing, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferred over sparse_compute or run_python.

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