triz_nine_windows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that present is required, that transitions fail closed, that transition results are reported as net rewrite steps, that verdicts are carried when behaviour or feasibility is declared, and that missing windows are reported as prompts. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether it mutates the model, which is a notable omission for an analysis 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?

The description is a single dense block with long semicolon-heavy sentences and no clear front-loaded summary. All content is relevant to a complex tool, but the structure makes it hard to scan and the most important invocation guidance is buried. It could be substantially tightened and organized without losing meaning.

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 complex seven-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers required inputs, transition failure semantics, view outputs, verdict carry-over, flow handling, and missing-window prompts. It does not provide a full example or state read/write safety, but the core complexity is addressed.

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 57%, so the description needs to add meaning, and it does: it explains past and future as snapshots or transitions, subsystem as a restriction to named boxes, system as the collapsed tool/mediator boxes, and acceptable as triz_weakness-style ranking. The transitions and verdict behaviour are described in prose beyond the schema. Some parameter details remain implicit, but the key semantics are covered.

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: a system operator over function models covering past, present, future, and subsystem/system/supersystem views. It references related tools such as triz_transform, triz_behavior, and triz_flow, but does not give a concise, front-loaded statement of what the tool returns overall. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify it, though the density makes it less immediately distinguishable from siblings.

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 focuses on mechanics and input semantics rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says present is required and describes optional snapshots and transitions, but does not explicitly say 'use this when' or 'prefer triz_transform instead when...'. There is only implied usage from the system-operator framing.

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