Get Spl Reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While the tool is obviously a read-only documentation lookup, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or is safe. The only behavioral detail is that it 'Returns... as an embedded resource,' which is vague about the return format but adds minimal transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a brief secondary sentence about return content. No fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

For a low-complexity documentation retrieval tool, the description reasonably explains what is returned (syntax, examples, usage patterns) but leaves the exact output format vague with 'as an embedded resource.' Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return structure could improve completeness, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (command, version, auto_detect_version) with detailed descriptions and examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but given the schema coverage is 100%, the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed reference documentation for specific SPL (Search Processing Language) commands.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (SPL command reference), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_spl_commands by emphasizing detailed, per-command documentation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool to use for detailed command reference, nor does it reference sibling tools like list_spl_commands for command discovery or get_splunk_documentation for broader documentation.

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