triz_trim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned sections (per-function absorbers, orphaned functions blocking the trim, harms and costs removed, one problem per absorber) and warns that a carrier match is only a necessary condition. The main gap is that it never states explicitly that the tool is read-only analysis and does not mutate the model.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the rules and outputs; no filler. The rule-letter parentheticals are long but earn their place by making the screening criteria self-contained.

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?

Given a huge embedded model schema and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the screening does, what comes back, and how to interpret the result. Only the relationship to sibling trim/absorber tools is unaddressed.

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?

The description's phrase 'trimming of one or more boxes' matches the `trim` array of box ids, which the schema already documents as 'Ids of the boxes to remove'. The `model` parameter is an unlabeled $ref whose semantics come entirely from the nested schema, so the description adds little beyond structured data at 50% coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Screen a trimming of one or more boxes') and enumerates the three TRIZ trim rules A/B/C, so an agent can tell what the tool computes. It does not name the closely related siblings (triz_trim_rewrite, triz_absorber_assignments), which keeps it from a 5.

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: this is the screening/verification step for a candidate trim, and the closing sentence tells the agent to treat every absorber as a hypothesis to substantiate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over triz_trim_rewrite or triz_absorber_assignments, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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