Split text into at most 200 overlapping chunks with offsets and intact UTF-16 surrogate pairs. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| chunks | Yes | ||
| offsetUnit | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new traits: a hard cap of 200 chunks, offset emission, surrogate-pair safety, and a free/no-credential operating mode during validation. 'Existing source and input limits apply' hints at constraints, though the actual limits are left unspecified.
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 core capability is front-loaded correctly and the sentences are short. But the framing sentences are boilerplate ('FREE during validation', 'Supply your task in input') that spend words without informing the call, so efficiency is only middling.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Yet for a tool with a nested input object and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves overlap and maxChars entirely undefined and includes a misleading 'task' instruction, so an agent cannot reliably construct a call beyond the minimal required text field.
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 0% across three nested properties (text, overlap, maxChars), so the description must carry the load. It gestures at overlap ('overlapping chunks') but never explains the overlap or maxChars parameters, their units, defaults, or acceptable ranges, and 'Supply your task in input' actively misdescribes the input shape.
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 and resource ('Split text into at most 200 overlapping chunks with offsets and intact UTF-16 surrogate pairs'), with concrete behavioral detail. No sibling tool performs text chunking, so differentiation is inherent, but the stray line 'Supply your task in input' muddies what the tool actually consumes.
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?
'FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed' gives cost/prerequisite context, which is useful. However, there is no when-to-use statement, no trigger condition, and no reference to any alternative tool; the agent gets no guidance on when chunking is the right move.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.