triz_lifecycle

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: exact rational arithmetic, holding cost charged once per decision step, the full return payload, box-local availability reading the request's acceptable list rather than global states, T3 ranges for undeclared probabilities, and undecided multichain/cap cases. It never states that this is a pure computation with no side effects, which is the main remaining gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Four sentences, none wasted, with the purpose front-loaded and the return values following. The prose is jargon-dense ('exact rational average-cost equations', 'T3 ranges') and would benefit from one plain-language gloss, but the density is information, not padding.

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 solver over a deeply nested model schema with no output schema, the description does supply the return values and key numerical guarantees, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It still leaves unexplained which model fields are mandatory (lifecycle.states versus box.state/actions), how the box parameter selects a subproblem, and what max_steps and derive_prior do.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify two parameters well — weights as per-dimension versus weighted objectives, and acceptable as the box-local availability list overriding the global list — and it implicitly explains box scoping. But max_steps and derive_prior are never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving those inputs opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it solves finite declared maintenance actions as an average-cost problem and returns a stationary policy with gain, bias, occupancy, and availability. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It does not name any sibling (e.g. triz_queue, triz_feasibility) that an agent should choose instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is only implied: the tool applies when maintenance actions and per-state holding costs have been declared on the model or on a box. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use triz_queue/triz_feasibility when Y' routing, and no stated prerequisites such as model must be reviewed. The closing note about multichain cases and caps is a limitation, not selection guidance.

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