chop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals the core operation and return type, but omits edge cases, parameter types, error handling, or behavior with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is insufficient transparency.

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 description is a single, clearly structured sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action and result.

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 simple string utility, the description covers the basic behavior and return type. However, there are no annotations or output schema, and details about interval semantics, edge cases, and alternative tools are missing, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema has zero declared parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description names the string input and the 'interval' parameter, and clarifies that interval defines piece size, adding meaningful semantics beyond the empty 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 description uses a specific verb ('Chop') and names the resource ('the string') and the output ('Array based on an interval'), clearly conveying the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the concept of splitting by fixed size is distinct enough.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (splitting a string into fixed-size chunks) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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