item_split

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'atomically' but does not clarify whether the original item is modified or deleted, what 'seeded' means, or the side effects of splitting. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of concerns. It is minimally adequate but could benefit from additional detail.

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 5 parameters with nested arrays and enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the function of the gates array, goals, or dependencies, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (id, description, goals, gates, dependencies). It does not explain how parameters relate to the split operation or the seeded subsprint.

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 verb ('Resolve as split') and the resource ('item'), and distinguishes it from other item tools (e.g., item_done, item_deprecate) and subsprint_new by specifying the atomic creation of a seeded subsprint. However, 'seeded' is somewhat vague without further explanation.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like item_done, subsprint_new, or artifact_add. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools.

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