Get Splunk Cheat Sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It plainly states that the tool 'returns an embedded resource with actual markdown content' and lists the content categories, making the non-mutating retrieval behavior clear. It does not discuss potential limitations like stale content or response size, but for a static reference resource this is adequately 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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and then uses a bullet list to enumerate the reference content. It is somewhat repetitive with 'comprehensive' and 'complete' in adjacent sentences, but the structure is scannable and every bullet adds useful detail.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no input schema complexity, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain return-value structures. It adequately covers what the cheat sheet includes and its intended use, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the returned content contains rather than trying to explain nonexistent inputs.

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 a comprehensive Splunk SPL cheat sheet with commands, regex patterns, and usage examples. It names a specific resource type ('cheat sheet') but does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like get_spl_reference or list_spl_commands, so it loses one point for differentiation.

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?

It explicitly says the cheat sheet is 'perfect for quick reference during SPL query development and troubleshooting,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer other SPL reference tools over this one or provide exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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