get_config_spec

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation returning reference information, but does not address error handling (e.g., nonexistent config file) or any potential side effects. It is adequate for a simple lookup 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details (returns options, syntax, examples). No extraneous information, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently explains the function and return nature. It could mention output format or error conditions, but overall it provides adequate context for an AI agent.

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 100%, with the schema describing the single parameter 'config' including examples and tip to use list_config_files(). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 gets 'detailed Splunk configuration file specification documentation' with 'all configuration options, syntax, and examples'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other documentation types (e.g., admin guide, SPL reference, cheat sheet) by focusing specifically on config file specs.

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 implies usage for obtaining config file specification details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_config_files or other documentation tools. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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