Get Troubleshooting Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the resource is 'embedded' and describes content (diagnostics, solutions, best practices) but does not disclose behavior like whether it performs network calls, caching, or error handling. It also doesn't mention if it mutates anything or requires special permissions. For a read-only documentation tool, this is somewhat acceptable but still limited.

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 is clear and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys the purpose without redundancy. While it lacks explicit usage guidelines, that is a separate dimension; in terms of structure and length, it is appropriately concise.

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 has 3 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a documentation retrieval tool, it could benefit from mentioning the format of the returned resource and any version-specific behavior. The tool is moderately simple, but the lack of behavioral details and alternative guidance leaves gaps.

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 for all parameters, including the topic and version fields with rich examples and defaults. The description itself adds no extra parameter info beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't elaborate on interactions or constraints beyond the schema.

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 fetches detailed Splunk troubleshooting documentation for specific topics, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('troubleshooting guide'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_splunk_documentation and get_admin_guide by focusing on troubleshooting, though it could more explicitly differentiate from get_splunk_documentation which might overlap.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_troubleshooting_topics or get_splunk_documentation. However, the context of returning 'detailed troubleshooting guides' implies it's for in-depth problem-solving content, but no clear exclusions or alternatives are given.

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