split

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions that output is 'separate files' and that page ranges are interpreted as 1-based, but does not specify whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, or error behavior. This is partial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a useful example. No wasted words; every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and gives an illustrative example. It does not cover output file locations or edge cases, but these are partially addressed in the schema (e.g., output_name default). Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example of the 'pages' parameter syntax ('1-3,5' extracts pages 1,2,3,5), reinforcing the schema's explanation without significantly extending it.

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 tool's function: 'Split a PDF into separate files by page range.' This uses a specific verb (split) and resource (PDF), and the example with page ranges distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract_pages' or 'delete_pages'.

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 a clear example of how to use the tool ('pages "1-3,5" extracts pages 1,2,3,5'), implicitly conveying when it should be used (when needing to split a PDF into separate files by page ranges). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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