split_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions output directory and heading level but does not disclose whether the original document is modified, what happens if no headings exist, or permission requirements. The return type is given, but side effects and error cases are 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant or missing words.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks edge-case handling (e.g., no headings, document not open) and could be more robust. Sibling tools are numerous but not directly relevant.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning to both parameters: output_dir (directory path, default behavior) and at_heading_level (heading level to split on). It also includes the return value structure, which complements the input schema. Could be more precise about heading level values.

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 action ('split'), the resource ('the open document'), and the output ('multiple DOCX files, one per heading section'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like split_table or other document manipulation functions.

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 the tool is for splitting a document by headings but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., split_table) or mention prerequisites (document must be open). No guidance on when not to use is provided.

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