Run Splunk Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that searches run as tracked jobs, that progress and counts are available, that results are constrained by user permissions, and that outputs include job id, status, counts, and timing. It lacks details about job lifetime, cancellation, or resource consumption, but the key operational behaviors are clearly stated.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, then moves into usage, outputs, security, and arguments. The inline parameter examples are useful but make the description somewhat longer than strictly needed. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides an excellent overview of when to use it, how it behaves, what it returns (job id, results, counts, timing, status), and per-parameter capabilities. It is self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is described with type, optionality, defaults, and concrete Splunk time examples. query receives detailed guidance and examples. This goes well beyond the bare property names and types in the input 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Splunk search as a tracked job with progress and stats.' It clearly distinguishes this from run_oneshot_search by emphasizing long-running and complex queries, and explicitly names outputs, making the tool purpose 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for complex or long-running queries... Prefer this over oneshot when the query may exceed ~30s or requires progress visibility.' This directly addresses when and why to use this tool versus its sibling run_oneshot_search.

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