net_split

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context by disclosing that only the first 64 results are shown, which is behavior an agent would not otherwise know. It does not cover validation errors or conflict behavior, but the main behavioral limitation is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the two modes, and the output truncation limit efficiently.

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 read-only split tool, the description covers the main modes and the 64-result truncation. But with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, it leaves gaps around cidr format, parameter interaction/defaults, and the exact return shape beyond the truncation hint.

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 partially does: 'count equal subnets' explains count, and '/new_prefix subnets' explains new_prefix, while 'or' implies mutual exclusivity. However, the cidr parameter's expected format and the behavior when both optional parameters are supplied or omitted remain undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('split') and resource ('a block') and clarifies the two output modes: equal subnets by count or subnets by new prefix. This is clear enough to distinguish it broadly from subnetting siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like net_subnet or net_vlsm.

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 'or' implies count and new_prefix are alternative modes, giving some usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools, no exclusions, and no explanation of which mode to prefer or what happens if neither optional parameter is provided.

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