triz_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the separationCheck outcomes, that invalid results fail closed for that node, and that tie-breaking favours irreducible nodes while flagging a top node that already separates. It stops short of describing the return payload or any cost/pagination behavior for an analysis call.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the text is heavy noun-stacking ('verifier-backed purpose gates', 'core-conflict ranking breaks ties on dissolves') that slows parsing. The final sentence, on TRIZ_GRAPH and the neutral core, is worth keeping; some of the check-outcome detail could be tightened.

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 analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains internal verdicts but not what the analysis returns or how results are shaped, which is the main gap. The prerequisite and fail-closed behavior are covered, so it is adequate but not 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only parameter-adjacent information is environmental ('Requires a project graph via TRIZ_GRAPH'), which is a useful invocation precondition but is not schema-level semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'analyse an OTSM Network of Problems (contradiction graph)'. The subject matter is unambiguous, though it does not contrast itself with adjacent siblings like triz_separate, triz_purpose, or triz_global_separation, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('Requires a project graph via TRIZ_GRAPH') and an explicit opt-in framing ('Optional project extension... not part of the neutral skill core'). However, it never says when to choose this over the many sibling analysis tools, leaving alternative selection implied.

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