Inspect one contradiction node's invariant, purpose gate, and separation check to validate project graph changes before proceeding.
Optional project extension: inspect the invariant, purpose gate, and separation check of one contradiction node of the project graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Node id as used in the project graph, e.g. S1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Inspect" reasonably signals a read-only operation and "Optional project extension" warns that the required extension may be absent, which is useful precondition context, but nothing is said about failure modes, whether the node must actually be a contradiction node, or what the check results look like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the optionality caveat first and zero filler. It is slightly dense with domain jargon ("purpose gate") that is never unpacked, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is inspected (invariant, purpose gate, separation check) but leaves unclear whether the output is values, verdicts, or diagnostics, and how a non-contradiction node is handled.
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 the single id parameter already documents itself with a concrete example ("e.g. S1"). The description adds no meaning about the identifier beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ("inspect") plus a concrete resource set — invariant, purpose gate, and separation check of one contradiction node — scoped to "one contradiction node of the project graph." That is far more specific than the name alone, though it does not name or contrast any of the many separation-related siblings such as triz_separate or triz_global_separation.
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?
"Optional project extension" hints at a context (the project graph extension must exist) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the many sibling TRIZ tools. An agent cannot infer from the description why it would choose this over triz_separate or triz_global_separation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.