subnet_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool splits a CIDR into equal subnets, implying a non-destructive computation. However, it does not disclose constraints like parent prefix relation, power-of-two requirement for count, or behavior when both parameters are provided.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Split'. Every word is meaningful, and no extraneous 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks details on return format, input validation, handling of edge cases (e.g., overlapping parameters), and prerequisites (e.g., valid CIDR, prefix hierarchy). This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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. It mentions 'by new_prefix or power-of-two count' but does not explain the parameters' roles, mutual exclusivity, or constraints (e.g., count must be a power of two). This leaves ambiguity for an AI agent.

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') and target resource ('CIDR'), and specifies the result is equal-size child subnets. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cidr_info or cidr_summarize.

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 mentions two splitting methods but does not provide guidance on when to use 'subnet_split' versus alternatives like 'plan_subnets' or 'cidr_summarize'. No exclusion criteria or context for when this tool is appropriate.

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