clarify_and_split_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important trait that the tool may return clarifying questions instead of executing a search, and that it can decompose a query into sub-queries. However, it says nothing about whether the sub-queries are executed, what the response shape looks like, or any side effects or limits on decomposition.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the alias disclosure and then the behavior. Nothing is redundant; the only slight weakness is that the alias sentence does not resolve how the agent should pick between the two names.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would need to explain the non-standard return (clarifying questions vs. split queries) and what the tool does with the sub-queries. It hints at the clarification behavior but leaves the result and execution semantics incomplete for a four-parameter planning tool.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how max_sub_queries interacts with multi-part splitting, or how context is used for coreference resolution).

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 names a concrete function: evaluating intent clarity, asking clarifying questions on ambiguity, and splitting multi-part queries into isolated searches. It also discloses that it is an alias for hyperspace_query_planner, which tells the agent what the tool really is. It stops short of saying how it differs operationally from the original, but the agent can tell what it does.

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?

Usage is only implied: the described 'asks clarifying questions if ambiguous' and 'splits multi-part questions' behavior suggests when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing this alias over hyperspace_query_planner. With a sibling that is functionally identical, the missing routing rule is a real gap.

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