split_at_indices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that indices are 'auto-sorted and deduplicated', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond basic splitting. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling (e.g., out-of-bounds indices), return format, or whether the operation is read-only or modifies data, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation implications.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action and one behavioral aspect but lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, or interaction with siblings, making it adequate but incomplete for full context.

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 must compensate. It implies parameters 'text' and 'indices' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's titles. No details on index semantics (e.g., zero-based, inclusive/exclusive) or text handling are provided. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is low, but the description doesn't adequately fill the gap.

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 verb ('split') and resource ('text'), specifying the action occurs 'at exact index positions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_substrings' or 'delete_range' by focusing on splitting rather than extraction or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'insert_at_index' which also involves indices.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions indices are 'auto-sorted and deduplicated', which hints at usage but doesn't specify scenarios like splitting text for processing segments versus using 'extract_between_markers' for marker-based extraction. It lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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