Get Metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as 'distinct values', 'recent time window', and 'Results are constrained by your Splunk permissions.' However, it does not mention any rate limits, response format, or what happens with no results, so it is moderately transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage context and a permission note. Every sentence earns its place, though the second and third sentences are somewhat complementary and could be merged without loss.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, usage, and a key behavioral constraint (permissions). It implicitly describes the return value as 'distinct metadata values.' It could mention pagination or the default field, but the schema covers those, so it is complete enough.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the tool is for 'query construction' and that the values are for 'hosts, sourcetypes, or sources,' but this is implicitly in the schema. It does not provide additional detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('distinct metadata values for a given index'), clearly stating what the tool does. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_sources' and 'list_sourcetypes' by scoping to a specific index and time window.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you need to discover which hosts, sourcetypes, or sources are present in an index within a recent time window') and explains its utility ('building targeted searches or validating data availability'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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