split_pane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose the return value and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention the mutating effect of splitting, potential side effects on the pane tree, or failure behavior, leaving part of the behavioral story untold.

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 main action and return type are front-loaded, followed by three compact parameter lines. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no nested objects and an output schema already present, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operation, return value, and all parameter semantics. Minor gaps include prerequisites and side effects, but the core knowledge needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the pane id format, the allowed direction values ('right or down'), and the ratio meaning with a range ('fraction of the split given to the new pane, between 0 and 1'). This goes well beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 specific action and resource ('Split a pane') and the key outcome ('return the new pane's id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_pane, close_pane, and list_panes without restating the tool name.

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 operation itself makes the primary use case clear, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or routing hints are provided relative to the sibling pane tools.

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