triz_effect_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several important behaviors: every wiring diagram passes checkModel, named configurations require expansion, ranking criteria, that capped search is undecided, and that physical sufficiency is not claimed. It does not explicitly state read-only status or return format, but the caveats are substantial.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and then adds validation, expansion, ranking, and limitation notes. Every sentence conveys useful information, though the jargon-heavy style could be more scannable.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description leaves key gaps. It covers purpose and behavioral caveats but does not explain how to use the bounded-search parameters or what the result structure looks like.

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 11% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to several parameters indirectly (bounded search, resources/output quantities, conditions, length, field changes, declaration order, and requiresExpansion), but it does not explain specific parameters such as k, limit, max_steps, or the structure of effects.

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 verb and resource: 'Search bounded typed effect chains from declared resources to a required quantity.' It also distinguishes itself from triz_effect_setup (expansion) and implies a contrast with physical sufficiency analysis, though it does not explicitly name other search siblings.

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 gives one clear alternative routing: use triz_effect_setup to expand named configurations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus triz_effects, triz_route, or other search/analysis tools, leaving usage context mostly implied by the purpose.

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