health

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action (get/list) but does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or has no side effects. It also omits any information about authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. The verbs imply a read operation, but this is not explicitly disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a sibling reference. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 is simple (no parameters, no nested objects), and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values. The provided information fully covers what the tool does and how it relates to health_check, making it complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details since there are none, and the schema is empty. This is appropriate.

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 verb and resources: 'Get basic Splunk connection information and list available apps'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool health_check by explaining 'same as health_check but for endpoint consistency', which clarifies its role as an endpoint-consistent variant.

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 by referencing the alternative tool health_check and noting they are the same, but this one is for endpoint consistency. This tells the agent when to use this tool instead of health_check, though it doesn't compare against other siblings.

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