triz_effect_setup

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 that recipes expand, that validation happens ('Return a checked rewrite and provenance'), and that missing conditions remain hypotheses. But it leaves unclear whether the tool persists anything in the registry, what validation failures look like, and what permissions or side effects exist.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remaining text is dense, jargon-heavy, and sometimes cryptic (e.g., 'Ordinary declarations correspond to expanded effect steps'). Several clauses repeat schema semantics rather than adding new guidance, reducing clarity.

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 highly complex tool with nine parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the core build operation and return value, but it omits enough parameter semantics and behavioral detail that an agent would need to rely heavily on the schema. For this complexity level, the description is not sufficiently complete.

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 61%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that node_declarations and context_values correspond to expanded steps and that boundary/behavior/state rows remain caller declarations. It does not explain other parameters such as system, conditions, or domain, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: 'Build a composable function model from registered effect or recipe ids.' It explains recipe and configuration expansion, which clarifies scope. However, it never names or contrasts sibling tools such as triz_build_model or triz_function_model, and the jargon (SI, carrier-layer, expanded-step) obscures the purpose for an unfamiliar agent.

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 gives internal parameter guidance ('Use node_declarations[expanded-step/node]...'), but it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion that would guide tool selection.

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