triz_global_separation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the result is exact, finite, and either a witness or a complete empty join, plus that no cohomology is computed. It omits behavioral details such as how max_work affects the computation, what happens when work limits are exceeded, and the precise return structure.

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 two dense sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The second sentence usefully rules out a naive pairwise approach and clarifies that cohomology is not involved, though the density of jargon may reduce immediate 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 complex constraint-satisfaction-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage. The description explains the high-level decision and result type but leaves out parameter meanings, work-limit behavior, and sufficient return-format detail for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for three parameters. The phrase 'allowed tuples on overlapping variable contexts' loosely maps to regions and allowed tuples, but the description never explains the variables parameter or the max_work parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 operation: deciding exact finite global compatibility of allowed tuples over overlapping variable contexts, returning either a witness or a complete empty join. This is more than a restatement of the name, though it relies on specialized jargon and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling triz_separate tool.

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 implies when the tool is needed by warning that pairwise projection compatibility alone is insufficient, which gives a condition for use. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings such as triz_separate, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions beyond the pairwise warning.

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