User Agent Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that sensitive values are masked)Skip useful detail. It doesn't mention read-only nature or any side effects (likely none). For a zero-param debug tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences, information-dense, front-loaded with 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?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description covers what it returns, mentions sensitive value masking, and debugging context. Could specify what 'core context metadata' includes, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so description need not explain parameters. Base score 4.

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 returns request headers and context details for debugging. The verb 'return' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and it distinguishes from the Splunk-centric sibling tools which all deal with searches, dashboards, or configs.

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 usage for debugging, which gives context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or exclusions. However, since no sibling tool serves this purposeholistically, it's clear when to use it.

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