onda_pane_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the core effect: "Creates a new terminal beside or below the current one," which implies the original pane remains unchanged. It doesn't disclose minor details like focus behavior, but for a simple split operation this is adequate.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that state the purpose, effect, and use case without any waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what it does, when to use it, and how the panes are arranged. Slight gaps around focus behavior and defaults are covered by the schema, so this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; 'beside or below' loosely maps to the direction enum, but cwd and shell are only covered by the schema itself.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: "Split the active pane in Onda terminal." It differentiates from sibling tools (pane_close, pane_focus, terminal_spawn) by focusing on pane creation via splitting, and mentions the direction options (beside or below) which maps to the direction parameter.

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 provides a clear use case: "Use this to set up parallel workspaces for multi-agent workflows." This gives context for when to use the tool, but it doesn't mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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