triz_effects

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: unregistered facets are advisory and 'never become generators or executable recipes', assessments characterize the whole named function while the selected typing may cover only one facet, and domain filtering implicitly includes universal effects. It also states what results retain (named cases, sources, limitations, review status), which is the kind of return-shape context annotations would otherwise provide.

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 and primary search axes are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentences are compressed to the point of opacity ('Unregistered facets are advisory and never become generators or executable recipes') and mix filter semantics with modeling theory. Most sentences carry real information, yet several require re-reading to extract actionable meaning.

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 an 11-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers discovery axes, filter exactness, result contents and the relationship to expand/chain siblings, which is close to complete. The remaining gap is the unexplained typed input/output string format, which the schema also leaves bare.

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 64% with 11 parameters, and the description compensates for the undocumented ones: it explains 'text or exact typed input/output quantity', SI dimension matching, and that pack and category filters are exact while domain is inclusive of universal effects. The 'input' and 'output' parameters are only covered obliquely through the phrase 'exact typed input/output quantity', which leaves the typed-string format itself unexplained.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Search effects from all installed knowledge packs') plus the search axes (text, typed input/output quantity, field, SI dimension), which is far beyond a restatement of the name. It is dense domain jargon, but an agent can tell this apart from triz_effect_setup or triz_effect_chains because those are named as downstream/adjacent operations.

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?

Usage context is implied through the filter catalogue (kind for modeling role, form for storage, assessment for retain/split decisions) and through routing hints ('expand through triz_effect_setup', 'chain search uses their constituents'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or a direct statement of which sibling to pick for a given intent, so the agent must infer the routing.

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