create_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mandatory docsConsulted flag and the documentation-first workflow, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects of creation (e.g., whether existing alerts with the same name are overwritten), authentication requirements, or error behavior. The 'read the official Splunk docs ... or a dashboard definition' snippet is generic and slightly off-topic for an alert tool, but the core constraint is conveyed.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence, and the third gives an actionable directive. Every sentence earns its place without 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 14-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides key usage guidance (docs-first, docsConsulted requirement) and a conceptual model. It does not mention authentication (though splunk_login sibling exists) or success/error output, but schema covers parameter defaults and enums. The slight mismatch about 'dashboard definition' is a minor flaw, but overall the agent has enough to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning beyond the schema by explaining that an alert is a scheduled saved search with a trigger condition, which clarifies how parameters like search, condition, threshold, and cron relate. It also emphasizes that docsConsulted must be true, reinforcing its semantics beyond the schema's simple 'Must be true.'

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 action (create), the resource (alert), and defines it as a 'scheduled saved search with a trigger condition,' which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_report or create_dashboard. It also adds scope ('under YOUR profile'), removing ambiguity about the target user.

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?

Explicitly states a prerequisite (docsConsulted=true) and gives a direct instruction to use the splunk_docs tool before writing SPL, preventing guesswork. It does not explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., for updating an existing alert), but the creation context is clear, and the 'under YOUR profile' constraint implies personal alerts rather than shared ones.

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