split_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the frame-detection algorithm (solid-color gaps or seams), the single-frame fallback, and upscaling of small frames, but says nothing about what is returned (single montage vs. separate images), file writes, or failure when no frames are found.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, mechanism and edge cases follow, and parameters are listed last. Slightly more detail than strictly needed, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, algorithm, and both parameters adequately. It is thin on return semantics and failure modes, which the agent would need to know before relying on the result.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is documented as the absolute image path, and max_edge is explained as the per-frame long-side cap with a 200–2000 range and a 1024 default (the range is not in the schema). This meaningfully exceeds the bare 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?

States a concrete verb (splits) and resource (a sheet/collage/turnaround) and adds the outcome ('shows each frame large'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like grid, sheet, or view, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context ('лист (коллаж, turnaround)') but never states when to prefer this over grid, sheet, view, or export_views. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving selection to inference.

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