suggest_token_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose the crucial behavioral trait: 'Read-only analysis' and 'Side effects: Read-only. No files modified.' This tells the agent it is a safe, non-mutating operation. It does not address permissions, error behavior, or performance, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only qualifier, then organized under labeled sections (What it does / When to use / When NOT to use / Side effects / Parameters / Returns). Every line earns its place and nothing is redundant, making it easy to scan.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description briefly signals the return shape ('split suggestions, proposed token names, and affected call sites'). Combined with the routing guidance and side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything required to select and invoke this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: token_name is described as an 'optional filter to analyze a specific token only' and project_path as an 'optional override for project root path'. Both parameters get meaning and their optional nature is clear, though no format or default guidance beyond that.

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+resource ('suggests splitting tokens used in multiple contexts') and adds a concrete definition of the detection logic with an example ('cards and buttons'). It explicitly names sibling tools (get_token_impact, get_token_siblings) so an agent can separate this from adjacent analysis tools.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing ('Use BEFORE replace_pattern'), plus named alternatives for other intents ('For token impact analysis use get_token_impact. For sibling tokens use get_token_siblings.'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with concrete routing.

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