splitwise_action

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like API key requirement, read vs. write operations, rate limits, or side effects. It only lists actions, omitting all such details, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral constraints.

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 at one sentence, but it lacks structure and detail. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices completeness, resulting in an underspecified definition that requires the agent to infer too much.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-action, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, authentication, or how parameters relate to actions, leaving the agent without essential context.

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?

The description adds value only for the 'action' parameter by listing the allowed values. For the other 6 parameters (api_key, group_id, description, cost, currency_code, users), the schema has 0% coverage, and the description offers no additional meaning, forcing the agent to guess their usage.

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 it performs Splitwise actions and lists the five possible actions (get_groups, get_expenses, etc.), so the verb and resource are clear. However, it does not distinguish the purpose of each action, leaving the agent to infer from the action names alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or which action to choose in different scenarios. The description lacks any context for decision-making, such as prerequisites or exclusions.

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