split

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

The description claims the tool is destructive ('creates multiple output files'), directly contradicting the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' which implies no side effects. This contradiction severely undermines transparency. The description does add useful behavioral details (dry-run, overwrite protection, default lines, JSON output), but the contradiction overrides them.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and caveats. Every sentence adds value (purpose, method, constraints, alternative reference) without redundancy.

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?

Despite the contradiction, the description covers the core behavior, constraints, and return format (JSON with output list and record counts). However, given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema) and the misleading annotation, the description should have also clarified the contradiction or provided more detail about edge cases.

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 100%, so baseline is appropriate. The description mentions default lines and dry-run, which are already captured in the schema parameters. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('input into chunked output files'), and explicitly distinguishes the splitting method (line count or byte size) from the sibling tool 'csplit' for content-based splitting. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 description states when to use the tool ('Use to partition large datasets') and provides a clear exclusion with an alternative ('Not for content-based splitting — use csplit...'). However, it does not cover other potential alternatives or contexts where this tool should not be used.

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