split_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Dividir texto') without explaining what happens during splitting (e.g., whether it preserves whitespace, handles encoding, or returns an array). It lacks details on error handling, performance, or output format, which are critical for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Dividir texto por diferentes criterios'), which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the core action without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing criteria, but it avoids waste.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., array of strings), how splitting criteria interact, or edge cases (e.g., empty text). For a text manipulation tool with moderate complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (text, delimiter, max_length) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., delimiter ignored if max_length is used) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Dividir texto por diferentes criterios' (Split text by different criteria) states the basic purpose but is vague about what specific criteria are available. It mentions 'different criteria' but doesn't specify whether these are delimiters, length-based splitting, or other methods. It distinguishes from siblings like 'count_words' or 'extract_emails' by focusing on splitting rather than counting/extracting, but lacks specificity about the splitting mechanisms.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where splitting text is preferable to other text manipulation tools like 'find_replace' or 'extract_urls', nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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