split_tile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that splits should be 'MECE' and 'physics/math-oriented when possible', but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens to the original tile. For a mutation tool (implied by 'split'), this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each adding value: the core operation, its methodological role, and a usage tip. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by 'tiling trees method', more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'MECE subsets' and 'physics/math-oriented splits', which loosely relate to 'splitAttribute' and 'subsets' but don't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('split a tile into MECE subsets') and specifies the method ('using a specific attribute/dimension'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_tiles_to_split' or 'update_tile'. It explicitly mentions this is 'the core operation of the tiling trees method', providing context about its role in the system.

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 description implies usage context by stating 'Use physics/math-oriented splits when possible', which suggests a preference but doesn't explicitly define when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explore_path' or 'validate_split_quality'. No clear exclusions or named alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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