get_config_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool 'Returns comprehensive reference with all configuration options, syntax, and examples,' which sufficiently discloses the read-only, documentation-returning behavior. Authorization or side effects are not relevant for a read-only doc tool.

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 concise sentences: the first clearly states purpose, the second adds return content details. No unnecessary words or information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the tool's output and mentions a related tool (list_config_files) for better workflow context.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'config' already has a detailed description with examples. The tool description adds minimal value beyond framing that the parameter specifies which file's spec to retrieve, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed Splunk configuration file specification documentation,' specifying a precise verb (get) and resource (configuration file spec). This distinguishes it from sibling documentation tools like get_spl_reference or get_admin_guide.

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 includes a directive to 'Use list_config_files() to see common files,' providing context on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other documentation tools or specify when not to use it.

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