plan_multi_copy_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions planning and distribution but does not disclose side effects (e.g., resource reservation, state changes), auth needs, or whether it is read-only. The lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 with two lead sentences and an 'Args' block. It front-loads purpose. Minor redundancy between first and second sentence, but overall no wasted words. Could be slightly tighter.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks critical context. It does not explain the return value (e.g., a plan ID, status), error conditions, or post-conditions. Incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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's 'Args' block adds basic meaning to each parameter. File_path, copies, and material get one-line definitions. However, it does not specify formats, constraints (e.g., copies > 0), or valid material values. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('plan') and resource ('parallel printing of multiple copies across printers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'multi_copy_print' by emphasizing distribution across printers for maximum parallelism.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings like 'multi_copy_print' or 'plan_failure_recovery'. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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