user_agent_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that sensitive values are masked, which is good, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or what 'core context metadata' includes.

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 sentences with no waste; the first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential detail about what is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (which likely documents return structure), the description covers the key points: what is returned (headers, masked sensitive values, context metadata). It is complete enough for a simple info tool, though it could mention that it is safe/read-only.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are no parameters to describe; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return request headers and context details for debugging.' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., create_config, run_splunk_search) by being the only tool focused on HTTP headers and user agent info.

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 includes 'for debugging,' providing a clear use context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are all unrelated, so no alternative exists for this specific function.

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