split_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection of config type and recommendation of best strategy, but does not explain side effects like whether the original config is modified or destroyed, authorization needs, or the nature of the splitting operation (e.g., whether it creates new skills or modifies the config).

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 three sentences, totaling about 30 words, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then adds supporting details (supported use cases, auto-detection) in a logical order.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% per-parameter description, so more context is needed. The description omits behavior details, parameter choices, and what the output schema contains, leaving gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only implicitly references config_path, but does not describe strategy options, target_pages semantics, or dry_run behavior. The phrase 'recommends best strategy' hints at strategy but lacks detail on possible values.

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 primary action: 'Split large configs into multiple focused skills.' It specifies the resource (large configs) and the outcome (focused skills), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_config or validate_config by focusing on splitting.

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 needing splitting, and that auto-detection recommends strategy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if config is small) or mention alternative tools like extract_config_patterns or enhance_skill for similar tasks.

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