split_long_text_into_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: use of X's weighted-length formula, t.co URL counting (23 chars), and boundary preference hierarchy. This aids the agent in understanding operational nuances.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, constraints, and behavior. The first sentence states the primary action and limit; the second adds critical details. No redundant or superfluous content.

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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description covers the main aspects: input, output format (implicitly a thread), and splitting logic. It adequately prepares the agent, though it does not specify edge cases like unsplittable text.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal new information beyond the schema—only reinforcing the numbering format. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents parameters.

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 'split' and resource 'long text into a numbered tweet thread' with specific constraints (≤280 chars). It distinguishes from sibling tools that address different X tasks, such as character counting or URL building.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear: use it to split a long text into tweets. It provides implicit guidance by mentioning preferences for sentence boundaries, which helps the agent understand splitting behavior.

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