triz_conservation

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the aggregation semantics ('consumptive branches sum; shared intensive requirements use max') plus a label caveat. It never says whether a violation raises an error or returns a diagnostic, whether any state is written, or what the caller receives — critical unknowns for a checking tool with no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core constraint-checking purpose is front-loaded before the aggregation rules. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained terms like 'consumptive' and 'shared intensive' borders on cryptic.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 29% schema coverage, the description is far from sufficient. An agent still cannot determine the meaning of the operation enum, what allow_loss permits, or how a failure manifests, which are exactly the gaps the description should 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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at unit/quantity_kind semantics through 'explicit units' and 'consumptive versus shared', but leaves operation (splitter/merge), max_work, allow_loss, and the port semantics of inputs/outputs entirely undefined in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('declared consumptive versus shared-level supply constraints'), scoped to 'explicit units'. An agent can tell this is a supply/demand feasibility check rather than a modelling or synthesis tool, though it never names a sibling to differentiate from and leans on domain jargon.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings like triz_feasibility or triz_adequacy, and no preconditions or exclusions. The closing sentence 'No physical law is inferred from labels' is a caveat about interpretation, not guidance about invocation.

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