split_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that move=False copies and move=True removes from source with backup and recalculation, but omits details on the 'xml' and 'backup' parameters, side effects, or whether the tool modifies files. The lack of annotation support and incomplete behavioral disclosure reduces transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter behavior. It is front-loaded but includes a parenthetical ('отдельная выгрузка nw-exchange') that may be unclear. Overall, it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: 'xml' is unexplained, 'backup' is unclear, return values are unspecified, and the nature of 'points' (likely viewpoints) is not clarified. The tool is mutating with multiple options, yet the description is insufficiently comprehensive.

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 explains names, folder, out, and move, but fails to describe the required 'xml' parameter and the 'backup' parameter (only indirectly mentioned). With 2 out of 6 parameters undocumented, the description does not adequately add meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool extracts points by names to a new file ('Вытащить точки по именам в новый файл'). It gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'отдельная выгрузка nw-exchange' provides context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'move_views' or 'merge_viewpoints', slightly reducing clarity.

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 explains parameter usage (names, folder, out, move) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_views' or 'merge_viewpoints'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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