splunk_audit_tool_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Query' implies a read-only operation and the description notes that execution duration and audit logs are returned plus a failure-only filter, but it does not cover permissions, retention window, rate limits, or what 'recent' means.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and follows with a compact parameter list. Every sentence and argument description serves a clear function without filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not document return values, and it explains all three parameters adequately. The main gap is the lack of annotation coverage and the vague 'recent' time scope, but for a simple audit-query tool the description is largely complete.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all three parameters in prose: limit as the number of audit records with a default of 50, tool_filter as an optional tool-name filter, and only_failures as a failure-only switch. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it does not explain accepted values or bounds for tool_filter or limit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and clearly identifies the resource as recent MCP server tool invocations, execution duration, and audit logs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as splunk_search_history or splunk_get_search_performance, but the MCP-tool-activity scope is distinctive enough for an agent to understand the purpose.

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 through its opening scope and the only_failures filter, which supports failure-analysis scenarios. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative tools, leaving usage largely inferred.

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