split_script

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions DELIMITER-awareness and non-execution, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose error handling, output format, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a parsing tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 18 words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second sentence clarifies a critical exception. Every word adds value.

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 simple parsing tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its key feature (DELIMITER-aware), and what it does not do. It could be more complete by noting the return format (e.g., an array of statements), but the core functionality is adequately described.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'DELIMITER-aware' but does not explain the 'delimiter' parameter, its default value, or how it affects parsing. The 'script' parameter is obvious, but the delimiter's role is underspecified.

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 'Parse' and clearly identifies the resource 'SQL script into individual statements'. It also adds the distinguishing feature 'DELIMITER-aware', which sets it apart from siblings like 'execute' or 'run_script' that execute scripts.

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 explicitly states 'Does not execute', which helps the agent distinguish this parsing tool from execution-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for execution or validation, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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