triz_absorber_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that enumeration is joint and constrained by one finite contract and a shared work budget, which is meaningful beyond the schema, but it does not state read-only status, determinism, behavior on budget exhaustion, or what the result looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but earns its place as a joint-sufficiency caveat.

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 six-parameter solver with nested objects and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits required inputs, budget and limit semantics, and expected results, leaving most completeness burden on the schema.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions only 'contract' and 'work budget' in passing. It does not explain the model, trim, implementation, max_work, or max_states parameters, so an agent must inspect nested schema details to understand required inputs.

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 action—enumerate compatible absorber endpoints and complete assignments—and adds a constraint about one finite contract and shared work budget. However, 'absorber endpoints' and 'complete assignments' are domain jargon, and the description never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as triz_implementations or triz_feasibility.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The warning that separate per-function successes do not establish joint sufficiency is a correctness caveat, not routing guidance for an agent choosing among sibling tools.

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