triz_component_catalogue

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully states that no behavior is inferred from names and that conditions remain visible hypotheses, but it does not describe the return shape, read-only nature, failure modes, or any permission or rate-limit constraints.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, but the remaining sentences are dense and run together with undefined domain jargon such as 'directed refinement observations' and 'global aliases'. The content is relevant, but the structure makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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?

This is a complex tool with ten parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the catalogue-source distinction and several selection parameters, but it does not fully explain the remaining parameters or the returned catalogue's structure, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 50%, and the description explains several important parameters: source, effects, mappings, bindings, and declarations. However, it leaves query, models, parent, and state_parameters largely or entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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: 'Return the general identity/fanout catalogue (default), or source:knowledge...' It distinguishes the default general catalogue from the knowledge-source catalogue, though the jargon 'identity/fanout' is not explained and sibling differentiation is limited to mentioning triz_component_search.catalogues.

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?

It states when to use the default versus source:knowledge, explains that effects and mappings select named realizations and directed observations, and instructs the caller to pass the returned catalogue to triz_component_search.catalogues for bounded discovery. It does not explain when not to use the tool or what to do if no catalogue is needed.

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