text_text_splitter

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'statistics' but fails to specify input requirements, output format, side effects, or constraints. The lack of parameter schema makes behavior unclear.

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 short but contains redundancy ('Menu ID: text_splitter' and 'Text Splitter Tool' are repetitive). It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on metadata. Could be more concise.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple split options, statistics), the description is insufficient. No parameters defined, yet the description implies choices. Without output schema, return format is unknown. The tool seems usable only via a separate describe_tool, which is poor design.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema itself is empty, so no conflict. The description mentions splitting options but does not map them to parameters.

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 clearly states it splits text with multiple methods (by lines, words, characters, delimiter, regex). It's a distinct tool among siblings, as siblings cover different text operations like case conversion, find/replace, etc. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar splitting utilities.

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 mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, implying this description is incomplete. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among siblings. The agent is left without clear invocation context.

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