Split Record File

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is intended to mutate state (splitting creates a new file) but is not flagged as destructive. The description doesn't disclose whether the split is immediate, whether recording must be active (prerequisite), or what happens to the original file. It lacks behavioral context like error conditions or effects on current recording. With no rich annotations, the description should provide more, but it provides only a basic action statement.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and achieves maximum clarity in minimal words, fully earning its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the core operation. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must be recording) or potential side effects, which would be expected for a mutating action. Given the simplicity and the context signals, the description is adequate but leaves room for more explicit behavioral guidance.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description's mention of 'current file being recorded' clarifies the implicit subject of the operation, which is valuable context since there are no params. With 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description provides the only semantic anchor for what is being split.

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 ('Splits the current file being recorded') and the resource ('into a new file'). It uses a specific verb with a concrete outcome, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like obs-create-record-chapter (which marks a chapter but does not split the file), the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to infer the operation.

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 used when recording is active and a file split is desired. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like creating a chapter or toggling pause. But given the tool name 'Split Record File' and sibling context, the usage context is fairly clear without exclusions.

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