triz_subsystem_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some real behaviour: two computation paths (symbolic compiler for complete serial maps, exact projection otherwise) and the policy that empty relations are explicit while missing behaviour stays unknown. It omits error conditions, the effect of max_states truncation, and what the returned boundary relation/port map actually contain.

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?

Three sentences, no filler words, and the core claim is front-loaded. However, the density of undefined terms ('exact finite boundary relation', 'checked symbolic compiler', 'exact finite projection') means the text is compact but not communicative, so brevity does not translate into clarity.

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?

This is a complex tool operating on a large nested model schema with no output schema, so the description must explain results; it only names three output artefacts without describing structure or meaning. With siblings like triz_subsystem_contract unaddressed and parameters undocumented, the definition is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%: id, boxes, model, and max_states have no descriptions. The tool text mentions 'port map', 'fixed cost', and 'hidden-harm list', none of which map to the four parameters, and it never explains that boxes selects which subsystem components are summarised or what max_states bounds. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a verb and resource ('Compose a stateless subsystem') and gestures at the output ('exact finite boundary relation with explicit port map, fixed cost, hidden-harm list'), but 'exact finite boundary relation' is unexplained domain jargon. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the adjacent sibling triz_subsystem_contract, leaving the agent to guess which one to select.

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 statement of when to use this instead of triz_subsystem_contract, triz_behavior, or triz_feasibility. The sentence about 'checked symbolic compiler' versus 'exact finite projection' describes internal routing behaviour, not a use-case condition the agent can act on.

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