split_generate_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it generates a configuration; it does not say whether it writes files, overwrites existing config, requires an API call (api_key), or how directory is used. This is effectively a tautological summary of the tool's name, so 1.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant wording, making it concise. It is front-loaded with the action verb. Though brevity comes at the cost of substance, that under-specification is penalized in other dimensions, so 4.

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?

This is a minimal description for a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It leaves the agent without knowledge of what kind of configuration is generated, whether files are written, or why api_key is needed. Among a large set of sibling generate tools, this is far too incomplete, so 1.

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 50% (only 'directory' is described). The description adds no detail about either parameter, especially the unaccounted 'api_key', which remains completely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap, so 1.

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 specific verb ('Generate') and a resource ('code splitting configuration'), making its basic intent clear. However, it does not specify the target framework or what the configuration contains, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like split_analyze_chunks or split_add_prefetch. This is clear but lacks differentiation, so 4.

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 exists on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. The numerous generate_* siblings make this ambiguity significant, so 2.

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