List Config Files

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states that the tool lists 'common' configuration files, implying a scope, and that it returns structured information. It does not mention any side effects (none likely), permissions, or error conditions, but for a read-only listing operation the provided details are reasonable.

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 concise sentences. It includes the core function and a note on its relationship to get_config_spec, with no redundant or filler content. Well-structured and 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It clarifies what it does, the scope ('common'), and the return type ('structured information'), and even indicates how to use the result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is complete. There is nothing to explain, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details. This is ideal.

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's purpose: 'List common Splunk configuration files (.conf) with descriptions.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configuration files'), and distinguishes from the sibling get_config_spec by indicating that returned info can be used with that tool for detailed specs.

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 when to use this tool by noting that the returned structured information can be used with get_config_spec() for detailed documentation. This suggests it is for obtaining an overview before drilling down. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, so it is slightly less than perfect.

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