splunk__submit_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the lifecycle: stores report, executes queries, builds findings, and returns status with either findings or a UI URL. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or side effects like overwriting, but provides reasonable transparency for typical use.

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, with a brief introduction followed by an Args section listing parameters and their meanings. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main workflow and return types. It does not detail the output schema content but mentions status and fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the response format.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains run_id as coming from splunk__investigate_start, report as markdown with confidence level, and queries as SPL strings starting with '-- area' comment. This adds significant detail beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: submitting an investigation report and follow-up SPL queries to the server. It explains the workflow of storing, executing, and returning results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like splunk__get_findings (retrieval) or splunk__investigate_start (initiation).

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 specifies that the run_id parameter comes from splunk__investigate_start, implying usage after that tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear. Sibling tool names provide implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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