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. It describes the tool as returning documentation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The term 'embedded resource' is vague.

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 conveys the core purpose and return type. It is relatively concise, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for the return content). No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('comprehensive documentation with syntax, examples, and usage patterns') but does not specify the format (e.g., text, structured object). With many sibling documentation tools, clearer differentiation and context would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed examples for the 'command' parameter and clear descriptions for 'version' and 'auto_detect_version'. The description adds that the return includes 'syntax, examples, and usage patterns', which provides context beyond the schema but does not deeply elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 retrieves detailed reference documentation for specific SPL commands, including syntax, examples, and usage patterns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_spl_commands' (which lists commands) and 'get_splunk_documentation' (general docs).

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 detailed docs on a specific SPL command, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'list_spl_commands' for discovering command names. The mention of 'embedded resource' hints at the return type.

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