get_field_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly describes what information is returned (unique values, top values, timestamps, related fields) and the verb 'Get' strongly implies read-only, but it never explicitly states that the tool does not modify data or whether there are any permissions, rate limits, or approximate-value caveats.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact parameter list and a structured return contract. Every section adds value and there is no filler or repetition of information already in the schema.

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 has only 3 parameters and no complex side effects, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, all parameters, and return values. It lacks explicit usage guidelines and any edge-case limitations, but for a read-only analysis tool the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema only provides titles and defaults, but the description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: field_name, indexes (explicitly noting None = all indexes), and timeframe (with format examples like '-7d'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Get detailed information about a specific field', which clearly names the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by listing specific analysis capabilities (value distribution, statistics, temporal information, related fields) that a raw search or listing tool would not provide.

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 a use case—deep analysis of a single field—but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like search_splunk or run_splunk_query. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool's name and capabilities.

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