List Lookup Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does describe the output metadata, but does not disclose whether the operation has side effects (it appears read-only) or any permission requirements. Since it's a list operation, the risk is low, but the description does not explicitly state its non-destructive nature. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that pack purpose, output summary, usage guidance, and an alternative. There is no fluff, and the most important information (the listing action) is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes value.

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 simple list operation with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is complete. It informs the agent what the tool returns, when to use it, and how to get more detailed content. No critical information 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 schema describes all 5 parameters with descriptions and default values, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention the purpose of filtering via 'discover available lookup files' implying the need for filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameters fully.

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 what the tool does: 'List CSV lookup table files in Splunk' and specifies the returned metadata fields (name, filename, app, owner, permissions, last updated). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from generic listing tools by focusing on lookup files.

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 provides explicit usage context ('Use this to discover available lookup files') and directs to an alternative tool for viewing content ('use run_splunk_search with '| inputlookup <filename>''). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the alternative is clearly stated, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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