split_analyze_chunks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it modifies files, requires network access, respects any configuration, or what side effects might occur. It also does not explain the role of the api_key parameter or any execution constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which supports conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of providing only a topic rather than a functional specification. It lacks the structural elements (input, output, behavior) that would make it appropriately sized for a tool definition.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description is the main source of context. It does not explain what 'chunks' refers to, what 'opportunities' means, what kind of report or result is produced, or how the api_key is used. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool or how to interpret its output.

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 coverage is 50%: 'directory' has a schema description but 'api_key' is undocumented. The description adds no parameter details at all, leaving the agent without semantic context for the key parameters. It fails to compensate for the undocumented api_key, and even 'directory' benefits only from the schema's minimal 'Project directory' label.

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 states a clear verb plus resource: 'Analyze code splitting opportunities'. This identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from nearby split_* generation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other analysis tools like bundle_analyze_size or complexity_analyze, and 'opportunities' is vague about what exactly is analyzed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as split_generate_config or split_add_prefetch. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended project state, or what makes this preferable to other analysis tools. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.

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