List Apps

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 discloses that the tool returns a detailed catalog with typical counts (54+ apps), content types (core apps, add-ons, custom, third-party), and metadata fields (name, label, version, description, author, visibility). This goes beyond a generic 'list' and gives concrete behavioral expectations. It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety. Overall, it adds meaningful context.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence immediately says what it does and what it returns. The second paragraph adds useful details about typical contents and volume. Every sentence contributes relevant information without redundancy or fluff.

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 provides clear expectations for the return: metadata fields, app categories, and approximate count. It also explains the tool's role in auditing/management. For a simple list operation with no parameters, this is complete and sufficient.

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, and the description explicitly states 'This tool requires no arguments', reinforcing the schema's empty property set. The instruction indicates a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds value by confirming the no-argument requirement, though it is already implied by 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 'Retrieve comprehensive inventory of all installed Splunk applications including metadata', specifying the action (Retrieve), resource (inventory of apps), and scope (all installed). It distinguishes from siblings like list_indexes or list_users by explicitly mentioning apps and their metadata. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 states 'Use this tool when you need to list all apps in the Splunk environment, such as for auditing, management, or troubleshooting compatibility', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical scenarios. It also notes that it requires no arguments, which is an important usage guideline.

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