split_by_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that two new objects are returned, but it does not state whether the original shape is preserved or deleted, how the plane is derived from normal/offset, or whether the new objects are added to a document. The phrase 'axis-aligned plane' also creates ambiguity because normal accepts an arbitrary number array.

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 focused sentence with no filler and is easy to parse. Its brevity is good, though it achieves economy by omitting important parameter and side-effect details.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no property descriptions, the description does not give an agent enough to call the tool correctly. The output schema covers return values, but the input semantics, plane definition, and side effects are left to inference. A minimal viable description with clear gaps.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds a hint about axis-avoalignment that relates to normal, but it does not explain offset, doc_name, or object_name, nor the expected format of normal. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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'), names the resource ('a shape'), specifies the operation ('by an axis-aligned plane'), and states the outcome ('return two new objects'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as split_for_print_bed or boolean_cut.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no context about when splitting is appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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