split_structures

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a list of files with titles, but omits details on original file handling, default output directory, overwrite behavior, supported input formats, and error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, minimal and to the point; every word contributes to the tool's purpose and output. No wasted text.

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?

Despite describing the return list, the description is incomplete for a file-splitting tool. Missing input file requirements, output directory behavior (default to input path?), and output format meaning. With no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. Input_path, output_dir, and output_format are all undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on required vs optional or format constraints.

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 the verb ('Split'), the resource ('multi-structure file'), and the output ('one file per structure, returns list of written files with titles'), distinguishing it from siblings like merge_structures or convert_structure.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for multi-structure files needing splitting, but lacks alternatives or context vs. siblings.

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