get_spl_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform about behavior. It states that it returns documentation as an embedded resource, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential network calls, rate limits, or access requirements.

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 long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every part adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

With three parameters fully described in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the needed context. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but the 'embedded resource' phrase sufficiently conveys the result.

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 description does not need to add much. It provides a brief example list for the 'command' parameter and examples for 'version', but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 it retrieves detailed reference documentation for specific SPL commands, specifying output as comprehensive documentation with syntax, examples, and usage patterns. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_spl_commands (which lists commands) and get_splunk_documentation (broader 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 implies usage for getting command-specific details but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_splunk_documentation or get_splunk_cheat_sheet. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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