triz_route

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 add real value by declaring routing is deterministic and that only tools registered for the stage are returned, which tells the agent results are stable and pre-filtered. It says nothing about the return shape (bare names vs. objects with metadata), what happens with unrecognized signals, or error behavior on an invalid stage.

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 action and inputs, then a behavioral guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the title, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, one enum, no nesting), but there is no output schema, so the description is the only source for what comes back. 'Returns only tools registered for that stage' hints at the payload but doesn't specify whether items are identifiers, names, or descriptors, nor how many candidates to expect. Mostly complete, with a meaningful return-value gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the stage enum and the signals array. The description adds only the notion that signals are 'observable' and optional, which the schema already conveys via the required list. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (route) plus both inputs (problem stage, optional observable signals) and the output class (candidate TRIZ tools). An agent can distinguish it from concrete siblings like triz_principle or triz_matrix, which perform the work rather than dispatching to it. It stops short of naming a specific sibling as the alternative, keeping it at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing 'route a problem stage... to candidate TRIZ tools' suggests calling this when the workflow stage is known and the agent wants candidate tool names. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus calling a sibling directly, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing precedence to inference.

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