discover_splunk_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'returns embedded resource with discovery guide' and lists its contents, which is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential delays. For a discovery tool, this level of transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 relatively concise, with two paragraphs. The first paragraph clearly states the tool's function, and the second paragraph lists the return contents in a bullet-like format. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is complete. It details exactly what is returned (static resources, dynamic patterns, version info, examples) and how it benefits the user. No additional information is necessary for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets that threshold.

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: discovering all available Splunk documentation resources. It specifies that it returns a comprehensive guide with documentation types, URI patterns, and examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific resources (e.g., get_splunk_cheat_sheet, get_spl_reference) by focusing on an overview, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar discovery tools like list_available_topics.

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 mentions it is 'perfect for understanding what documentation is available and how to access it through the documentation tools,' which gives clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the existence of many sibling tools for specific resources implies the distinction.

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