splithub_refs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content (files and lines) and implies a count, but says nothing about scope (which directory/repo is searched), read-only safety, or permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow guidance second. No filler, though the parenthetical phrasing is slightly informal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the workflow context is present. However, an agent still cannot tell the search scope, whether uncommitted files count, or exactly what string to pass for the experiment-goal variant.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates partially by indicating the input is an experiment id or its goal. It does not specify format or whether the goal is a free-text string.

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 names a specific resource — 'Files and lines that use an experiment id or its goal' — which is clearly a code-reference lookup and distinguishable from siblings like splithub_ship or splithub_review. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, which slightly weakens it.

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?

It gives two concrete usage points: after wiring code to verify references, and after splithub_ship where the count should be zero, tying it explicitly to a sibling tool's workflow. It does not say when not to use it or name an alternative lookup tool.

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