triz_pareto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it reports frontier, dominated, and trade-off relationships; never resolves incomparable candidates; and weights only order the listing without changing verdicts or being filled in. It also clarifies that values are declared inputs rather than measurements, though it does not state whether the operation is read-only or how invalid inputs are handled.

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 dense sentences are front-loaded with the core operation and contain no filler. The first sentence is long and packs several definitions, and some wording repeats the schema, but the complexity is largely warranted.

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 computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the conceptual output categories (frontier, dominated-by, trade-offs) and the advisory role of weights, which is substantial. It still leaves the exact return structure and input-validation behavior unstated.

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 already 100%, and the schema itself defines candidates, metrics, directions with enum/default, and weights as advisory. The description reinforces the Pareto meaning but adds little parameter-level information beyond the existing schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Rank finite candidate designs jointly over declared metric vectors') and defines the frontier, dominance, and trade-off outputs. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling TRIZ tools that generate, model, or retrieve data.

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 concrete usage context by naming outputs from triz_feasibility, triz_lifecycle, triz_synthesize, and triz_component_search as candidate sources, and permits any finite comparable numbers. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative ranking method.

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