Read split options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'read-only, no undo step' largely restates it. The genuine additions are the enumerated return fields and the guarantee that every reported point of time can be handed to splitTime without conversion, which is real behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core verb and then enumerates the returned fields compactly. The field list is dense but each entry maps to actual output, and the two trailing sentences earn their place; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are supplementary, and the description still covers the integration path to rillsoft_task_split plus the safety note. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though it doesn't address ambiguity handling of uuid versus number.

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 uuid, number and resourceType are already fully documented with an enum. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how number disambiguates, when to set resourceType), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (enumerates) and resource (the ways a task can be split), then itemizes the concrete fields it returns. It also names the sibling rillsoft_task_split and explains the relationship, so an agent can distinguish this read-only options tool from the mutating split tool without inspecting either schema.

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?

Clearly frames the workflow: get the options here, then pass the reported time points straight to rillsoft_task_split.splitTime. That gives strong context for when to call it, though it offers no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., required task state).

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