triz_separate

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the three return statuses (compatible, separated, irreducible), explains the conflict-cell output, and describes the extra data returned under `along` including the 'checkable part of Principle 15' nuance. It stops short of stating that the tool is side-effect-free/computational, but the analysis framing implies it.

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?

The first sentence is well front-loaded and the important part (what it decides and returns) leads. However, the remainder is a dense run-on block with long parenthetical enumerations of principles and sibling tools, making it hard to scan; several clusters could be broken into short discrete statements without losing content.

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 tool with a nested contradiction object, a five-value axis enum, and no output schema, the description supplies an unusually complete picture of inputs and outputs, including the suggestions payload and its per-axis hints. It is nearly self-sufficient, with the only omission being the absence of any safety/mutation note, which matters little for an analysis routine.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that `along` returns the parameter as a function of that axis and demonstrates the 'time' case, and it clarifies the Demand semantics ('omitted axis = whole axis', values as admissible set). The nested contradiction structure is left to the schema, but the key behavioral meaning of `along` is well covered.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (Decide) and precise resource (whether a physical contradiction's demands can be met piecewise over a finite space x time x condition x direction x level base), naming the MATRIZ separation types. It clearly distinguishes the operation from generic resolution siblings by scoping it to piecewise separability, though it never names triz_global_separation or triz_resolve as the contrasting alternatives an agent would weigh.

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 implied rather than prescribed: the agent can infer this is the tool for testing separability of an existing physical contradiction with demands. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as triz_global_separation or triz_resolve, which is the main gap given how many sibling resolution tools exist.

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