triz_synthesize

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

With no annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that capped search yields an undecided (not negative) result, that impossibility claims are scoped to the declared library, and that bounded fallback occurs during optimized/symbolic search. These are non-obvious, high-value traits an agent could not infer from schema alone. It stops short of describing cost, runtime expectations, or output shape.

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?

Five sentences, technically dense but not padded; the operational caveats at the end earn their place. It is not front-loaded well though — the second sentence is a dense run of jargon ('typed joint finite maps across explicit wire permutations') that impedes comprehension more than it informs tool selection.

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 high-complexity tool (12 params, deep nested schema, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the search semantics well but says nothing about what the caller receives back (satisfying tuples? violation reports? certificates?). Without an output schema, the return-value gap is a meaningful omission for a tool this intricate.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining what 'optimized' and 'symbolic' strategies actually do, grounding the strategy enum. However, seven of twelve parameters (max_work, max_states, optimizations, max_pruning_work, max_symbolic_work, max_symbolic_cells, include_symbolic_certificate) are not addressed at all, and the contract/holes/model/implementation semantics are left to the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific action on a specific resource: searching finite behavior/resource alternatives over fixed wiring. But 'synthesize' as an outcome (producing implementations that satisfy a contract) is only implied by 'Every surviving tuple meets one shared engineering contract', and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like triz_feasibility, triz_implementations, or triz_subsystem_synthesize-adjacent tools. The core purpose is recoverable but requires domain familiarity.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives; the mention of 'optimized', 'symbolic', and 'exhaustive' compares internal strategies, not sibling tools, and that comparison is already in the strategy parameter's schema description. The closest to usage guidance is a caveat ('Capped search is undecided'), which is behavioral, not a when-to-use rule.

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