Get Cim Reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only vs. potentially heavy resource usage, nor what happens with invalid model names or version fallback. It claims 'comprehensive reference' but no caveats.

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?

One sentence forming a tight, front-loaded description. No fluff; every phrase adds value (detailed, field specs, examples, mappings, tagging, implementation). Well-structured, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Two parameters, no output schema, no annotations – the description covers content but omits return format, error handling, or use cases. It's adequate for a documentation lookup but lacks completeness for an agent unfamiliar with CIM.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including model examples and version options. Parameter semantics are well-handled by the schema; description adds no additional parameter insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves Splunk CIM data model documentation with field specs and config examples. Its purpose is distinct from siblings like get_spl_reference or list_cim_data_models, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implies use when needing CIM-specific reference, but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for general Splunk docs). Sibling names suggest alternatives, but no direction is given.

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