MCP Server for Splunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns ('structured list of troubleshooting topics'), the format of each topic (key, title, description, example usage), and its relationship to another tool. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second describes the return format, and the third provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns and how to use it. It could be more complete by mentioning potential behavioral constraints (like whether this requires authentication or has rate limits), but it adequately covers the core functionality and relationship to other tools.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output format.

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 with specific verbs ('list all available troubleshooting topics') and resource ('troubleshooting topics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for discovering what troubleshooting documentation is available, differentiating it from tools like get_troubleshooting_guide which requires specific topics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this tool to discover what troubleshooting documentation is available before calling get_troubleshooting_guide with specific topics') and names the alternative tool (get_troubleshooting_guide). This gives clear context for when this tool should be used versus its sibling.

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