anamnesis_split_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that each chunk becomes a source record that can be fetched and processed into a memory, and that it must follow scan_sources. However, it does not cover permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, error behavior, or other side effects an agent would want for a write operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives the workflow context, and the third explains the outcome. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 described. But for a tool with four required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits critical operational details: expected parameter formats, chunk object structure, and file_type/project semantics. An agent could not invoke this reliably without inspecting the schema and guessing.

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% for all four required parameters. The description hints that chunks are split by line range, but it never explains the format of chunks, the meaning of file_path, file_type, or project, or expected values. It adds minimal semantic value over an entirely undocumented 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 states a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('source file'), plus the key mechanism ('split into chunks by line range'). It also distinguishes this from the sibling scan tool by naming anamnesis_scan_sources as the prerequisite, so an agent can tell what this tool does versus alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit timing and context: 'Call this after anamnesis_scan_sources to break a large file into manageable pieces for reading and memory creation.' This tells the agent when to use it and what workflow it belongs to, though it does not state when not to use it or name other alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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