Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action ('split text into an array') but omits critical details: it does not mention that splitting is delimiter-based, how empty strings or edge cases are handled, whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 ('Split text into an array') with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every sentence (here, a single sentence) earns its place by stating the essential function without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the splitting mechanism, parameter usage, return format (e.g., array structure), or behavioral traits. For a basic string operation tool, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters ('text', 'delimiter', 'limit'), such as their roles, default values (e.g., delimiter might default to whitespace), or semantics (e.g., 'limit' controls the number of splits). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 'Split text into an array' clearly states the verb ('split') and resource ('text'), with the outcome ('into an array') specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'string_join' (which combines) and 'regex_split' (which uses regex), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specificity about the splitting mechanism (delimiter-based), making it slightly less precise than a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'regex_split' (for regex-based splitting) or 'string_substring' (for extracting parts), nor does it specify use cases (e.g., for delimiter-based text processing). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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