split_for_print_bed

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 does not say whether the original object is modified, whether new objects are created, how pieces are named, or how the axis parameter affects the split. This lack of side-effect transparency is significant for a splitting operation.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices behavioral and parameter detail that other dimensions capture.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, making the description the only source of guidance. It omits axis semantics, side effects, naming behavior, and practical usage context; the output schema may define return values but cannot compensate for missing operational guidance.

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 needed to clarify parameters, but it explains none of them. The parameter names like object_name, bed_length, and bed_width are somewhat self-explanatory, but axis is ambiguous and doc_name is entirely unexplained.

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 the target outcome: converting a long object into print-bed-sized, axis-aligned pieces. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic split tools like split_by_plane, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'long object into print-bed-sized pieces' implies the tool is for cases where an object exceeds the print bed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as split_by_plane. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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