Resolve TRIZ contradictions by looking up a matrix cell and returning recommended inventive principles plus the improving and worsening engineering parameters; blank cells fail closed.
Look up a contradiction-matrix cell and expand its recommended principles and both engineering parameters. Fails closed on blank cells.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| improving | Yes | Parameter to improve (1-39) | |
| worsening | Yes | Parameter that worsens (1-39) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — 'Fails closed on blank cells', meaning empty matrix intersections raise an error rather than returning nothing — which is valuable. It says nothing about read-only nature, output volume, or what 'expand' produces structurally.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and the failure-mode note is short and earns its place. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the definition covers the core action and one edge case. It leaves the agent guessing about return shape (how principles and parameters are presented) and about sibling selection, which matters in a 50-tool family.
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 already carry range descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'both engineering parameters' confirms the two inputs map to the matrix axes, but adds no new semantics such as directionality or example values.
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 verb and resource: 'Look up a contradiction-matrix cell' and 'expand its recommended principles and both engineering parameters'. That is clearly distinguishable from generic list/lookup tools, though it never names triz_matrix or triz_matrix_multi, which occupy adjacent territory in the sibling set.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given that triz_matrix, triz_matrix_multi, and triz_principle all exist, the description does nothing to route the agent between them or state prerequisites such as needing parameter numbers in the 1-39 range first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.