query_splunk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation 'runs as you' (authentication context) and that 'Splunk enforces data access' (authorization), which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or potential side effects, though a query inherently implies read-only; it omits details on rate limits or large result handling.

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 concise yet information-dense: it states purpose, security context, and a documentation-first rule in just two sentences. The structure is logical, leading with the function and then the usage prerequisite.

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 query execution tool, this definition covers all essential operational aspects: what it does, how to call it (with parameter details), default values, and a mandatory documentation step. It lacks an output schema but compensates with the maxResults description and is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema describes all 4 parameters with clear explanations, including defaults for earliest/latest and maxResults, and the query parameter notes auto-prefixing of bare terms. This gives agents complete guidance on how to construct inputs without ambiguity.

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 'Run an SPL search and return results', specifying a concrete verb and resource, and adds 'runs as you' which conveys scope. Among siblings, only this tool executes SPL queries, so it is distinct from splunk_docs, dashboard, report, and alert tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use the splunk_docs tool (topic 'spl') to verify command syntax before composing queries' and emphasizes 'DOCUMENTATION-FIRST' and 'do not guess syntax or schema', giving clear when-to-use and pre-conditions. It routes users to the appropriate alternative (splunk_docs) and clarifies that this tool is for running queries after verification.

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