suggest_cluster_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis ('analyze... and suggest') but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it disclose permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacks explicit assurance of non-destructiveness.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and result.

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?

The description is too brief given the tool's complexity and the presence of three parameters. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter documentation leaves the agent without critical information to correctly select and invoke the tool. The description fails to cover essential details for effective use.

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% for the three parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'cluster_slug', 'min_community_size', or 'max_communities'. Without schema descriptions, the tool's behavior and parameter effects are unclear.

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 action: analyze a cluster's citation graph and suggest sub-topic splits. It uses specific verbs and resources, and from the sibling list, it is distinct from tools like 'split_cluster' (which presumably executes splits) and 'propose_subtopics'.

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 siblings like 'split_cluster' or 'propose_subtopics'. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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