splunk_docs

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 states what the tool returns (documentation references) and the mandatory ordering ('Call this first'), but it does not disclose side effects (though it implies read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact format of the returned references. It is not contradictory, but it is not rich in behavioral detail.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and directive are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the optional parameter detail in the second. It is concise, well-structured, and immediately actionable.

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 with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description communicates its purpose and invocation order, but it does not clarify what the 'documentation references' actually contain (e.g., links, text snippets, file paths) or how they will be presented. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for the agent, but the core context is sufficient for basic usage.

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 property 'topic' already includes a description listing the valid options ('Optional focus: spl, studio, classic, or rest. Omit for all references.'). The tool description repeats the same information ('Optional topic: spl | studio | classic | rest.'). Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Return the official Splunk documentation references') and the resource being returned (documentation references). It also specifies the purpose ('MUST consult before authoring SPL or dashboards'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that actually create or query data. This is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('Call this first when writing queries or dashboard definitions'), providing clear context for usage. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or exclusion scenarios (e.g., 'do not call if you already have the docs'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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