splunk_check_source_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic check, but it doesn't state the required permissions, whether it runs a background search that could be expensive, how 'active' is determined, or what happens to expected sources that are missing.

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 purpose sentence comes first, and the Args block is terse, with no filler. The Args block mostly duplicates schema titles, but it is not verbose.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but with zero schema coverage and zero annotations, the description should explain matching behavior: exact versus wildcard source matching, case sensitivity, and the semantics of the lookback window. It omits all of these for a three-parameter verification 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only restates parameter titles. It usefully clarifies that expected_sources accepts source or sourcetype strings, which is real added meaning, but 'lookback: Time interval to inspect' never explains the '-4h' relative-time syntax or the accepted formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Verify that expected data sources are active and currently indexing data.' That clearly separates it from listing tools like splunk_list_sources or splunk_list_sourcetypes, but it never names a sibling or says what makes it different from splunk_get_data_freshness or splunk_search_data_gaps.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to call it instead of alternatives, or which prerequisites must be met first. There is no exclusion or routing guidance at all, even though several sibling tools cover overlapping monitoring intent.

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