plan_assembly_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the basic operation without mentioning side effects, state changes, prerequisites (e.g., printer locks), or if it is read-only. The agent lacks safety cues.

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 and front-loaded, with a docstring format. Every sentence provides value (purpose and parameter explanations). It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main operation and parameters. However, it lacks details on return values, synchronization, or process flow, making it minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully explains both parameters: 'file_paths' as list of assembly files and 'material' with default 'pla'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 action ('Split' and 'Assigns') and the resource ('multi-file assembly','printers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan_multi_copy_split' by focusing on multi-file assembly for parallel printing.

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 implies usage for multi-part assemblies for parallel printing but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or context limits are provided.

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