List Lookup Definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers some transparency by stating that the tool 'returns metadata including name, type, associated filename, ... permissions', which tells the agent the nature and content of the result. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe pagination behavior, authentication needs, or possible error conditions.

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 compact, consisting of three targeted sentences that state the purpose, define the resource type, and list expected return fields. It is well-structured and free of filler, though it could be slightly tighter if it omitted the final explanatory sentence.

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?

For a listing tool, the description captures the core purpose and key outputs, but it does not clarify the relationship to similar sibling tools or explain how filtering/pagination parameters affect behavior. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but misses opportunities to give the agent fuller operational context.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has clear semantics and defaults. The description supplies domain context about lookup definitions but does not deepen the meaning of specific parameters like app, owner, or search_filter beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is maintained.

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 identifies the action ('List lookup definitions') and resource ('transforms in Splunk'), so it has specificity beyond a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling 'list_lookup_files', so it falls short of full 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_lookup_files or run_splunk_search. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without exclusionary or comparative context.

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