Get Configurations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool accesses any Splunk configuration file, can retrieve by entire file or specific stanza, and returns structured data with all settings and values. The word 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, and the return format is stated, though permissions and error behavior are not covered.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently covers usage context, scope, and return format without unnecessary filler. There is slight redundancy between 'Retrieves Splunk configuration settings' and 'Access settings from any Splunk configuration file,' but overall it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a solid job covering purpose, scope, usage context, and return format for a read-only tool. It addresses the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or errors, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by mentioning 'entire file or specific stanza' and providing example conf files, but it largely relies on the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not meaningfully elaborate on app/owner parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Retrieves Splunk configuration settings from specified .conf files,' a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_config, list_config_files, and get_config_spec by focusing on reading actual settings from .conf files, and it reinforces the purpose with examples like props.conf and inputs.conf.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to access or inspect Splunk configurations, such as for troubleshooting, auditing, or understanding settings.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the full 5-point bar.

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