triz_queue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important combinatorial trait that 'all declared arrival combinations within the schedule are considered,' which warns of state-space explosion. However, it says nothing about what is produced (no output schema exists), whether anything is mutated, how max_work bounds the search, or what happens on overflow detection.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the combinatorial caveat placed as a follow-up. There is no filler, though the phrasing ('Compile a finite discrete queue with explicit arrivals...') is dense and could be marginally tighter.

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 an eight-parameter, seven-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the caller gets back and how the overflow check is reported. It covers the inputs and the combinatorial semantics, but leaves the return behavior and the role of max_work unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 63%, so the schema already documents arrivals, schedule, time_unit, quantity_unit, service_capacity and storage_capacity. The description only echoes those fields by name and adds no unit conventions, formatting rules, or meaning for undocumented parameters such as initial_backlog and max_work. It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor degrades below baseline.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Compile a finite discrete queue' with arrivals, service capacity, storage capacity, schedule and units, then 'check overflow through existing dynamics.' That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. The only gap is that it does not name which sibling (e.g. triz_dynamics or triz_flow) it depends on, so the boundary against those tools is only implied.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling modeling tools such as triz_flow, triz_dynamics, or triz_build_model. The phrase 'through existing dynamics' hints that a dynamics model must already exist, but this prerequisite is never stated as a condition. An agent must infer both the prerequisite and the usage scope.

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