triz_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits such as the default all-packs behavior, domain-filter inclusion of universal definitions, that taxonomy assessments are advisory, and that the tool does not automatically invoke the matrix. It does not clearly describe read-only safety or response behavior, and its statement that fields supply no response contract is confusing rather than clarifying.

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 dense, jargon-heavy run-on that mixes purpose, return content, taxonomy caveats, default behavior, and matrix separation into a few long sentences. It is not well structured or front-loaded for an agent trying to quickly determine what the tool does.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clearly explain what the agent will receive and how to interpret it. It instead offers a sprawling list of possible concepts and an odd disclaimer that fields supply no response contract, leaving the output shape and practical usage insufficiently clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents that query searches definitions and domain is optional and includes universal definitions. The description reinforces the default all-packs behavior and the universal inclusion rule, but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'List installed universal and domain knowledge packs' plus provenance, review status, models, observations, and counts, so the broad purpose is inferable. However, the long list of heterogeneous outputs and taxonomy caveats makes it hard to tell exactly what the tool returns, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as triz_tool_catalog or triz_matrix beyond a separate note about canonical matrix parameters.

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 states defaults and filter behavior, including that all packs are used by default and a domain filter includes universal definitions. It also clarifies that these parameters are separate from the canonical 39 matrix parameters and that domain mappings do not invoke the matrix automatically, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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