run_splunk_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions outputs (job id, results, counts, timing, status), security (permissions), and implies a non‑destructive read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior beyond the listing.

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 well‑structured with a purpose paragraph, an output list, a security note, and a parameter list. It is front‑loaded with the key decision point ('Use this for complex...'), though the parameter section could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity, 3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and basic behavior. Missing details include error handling, cancellation, and a structured output specification, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully—and it does. Each parameter (query, earliest_time, latest_time) is provided with clear explanations, examples, and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 it runs a Splunk search as a tracked job with progress and stats, and explicitly contrasts with oneshot for complex/long-running queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_oneshot_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('complex or long‑running queries') and when to prefer alternatives ('Prefer this over oneshot when the query may exceed ~30s or requires progress visibility'), including a direct sibling comparison.

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