split_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection and recommendation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., creation of new skills), permissions required, or any destructive actions. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 concise with two sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds context about supported configs and auto-detection. No filler or 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 absence of parameter documentation and behavioral details, the description is incomplete. The existence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged in the description, which does not mention return values or results. For a tool with moderate complexity (4 params), more coverage is needed.

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?

Parameter description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about the four parameters (config_path, strategy, target_pages, dry_run) beyond what the schema provides. For instance, 'strategy' default 'auto' is not explained, and 'dry_run' is not elaborated.

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 purpose: splitting large configs into focused skills. It specifies supported use cases (documentation over 10k pages, multi-source configs) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_config' or 'validate_config' that serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for large configs and mentions auto-detection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_config' or 'fetch_config'. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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