triz_component_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses bounded-search semantics — completeness applies only to the declared bounded catalogue, and capped search is undecided — plus the optional contract checks, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how candidates are returned, or what errors to expect.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main search/synthesis purpose before adding bounds and contract details. The wording is dense and jargon-heavy but not padded; every sentence carries relevant information.

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 15 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description conveys the core intent and some search semantics, but it does not explain the required model/resources/targets input shape or what the search actually returns, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to close.

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 low at 27% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for catalogues/bindings, instance/component/work bounds, and contract checks, but does not explain required parameters such as model, resources, targets, or the roles of flows, remove, replace_wires, implementation, and require_all_resources.

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 activity — constructing and searching component choices, chains, and multi-input networks from typed catalogues — and names the inputs (catalogues, bounds, contracts). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as triz_component_catalogue or triz_synthesize, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explains what the tool searches and that contracts are optional, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the purpose alone whether to call this versus catalogue management or model synthesis tools.

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