triz_matrix_multi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the aggregation rule (count of recommending cells), the tie-break (mean position), that per-cell detail is returned, and the fail-closed behavior on all-blank or diagonal-only results. What is missing is any indication of permissions or cost, though for a read-only matrix lookup that is minor.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its aggregation rule, with no filler. The middle 'nothing is hidden' clause is slightly promotional but does convey per-cell transparency.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the result, and it does describe aggregation, tie-breaking, and per-cell return. The main gap is the shape of the returned data and what 'mean position' refers to, but the conceptual model is present.

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 100% and both parameters are documented as integer arrays of 1-39 with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the cross-product semantics of improving x worsening but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb-plus-resource: a multi-parameter contradiction lookup over the (improving x worsening) matrix, with principles aggregated. That distinguishes it from the singular triz_matrix sibling by the 'multi-parameter' qualifier, though it never states the distinction outright.

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 gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use when a conflict involves several parameters on either side.' The alternative for a single-pair lookup is only implied through the name and the 'like triz_matrix' aside, not spelled out as a routing instruction.

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