split_table

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that rows move to a new table inserted immediately after, implying the original table is modified. It also lists the return value. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., modifies original table), but the current detail is good.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, detailed behavior, and explicit Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention error behavior for invalid indices, but this is not critical. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 add meaning. It fully explains both parameters: table_idx is a 0-based table index, at_row_index is a 0-based row index with constraints. This adds complete semantics beyond the 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 clearly states it splits a table into two at a given row index, specifying which rows remain and which move. This distinguishes it from siblings like copy_table (which duplicates the entire table) and delete_table (which removes a table).

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 explains the splitting logic and the required constraints on at_row_index (must be >0 and < row_count). It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the specificity makes the intended use clear. A brief 'when to use' note would improve it.

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