splunk_correlate_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the time-window behavior and default timestamp but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether it is expensive, which data sources are correlated, or any limits on the correlation search.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence and parameter note contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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 exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and a broad correlation purpose in a dense sibling set, the description is only minimally complete: it explains the parameters but omits operational context such as data sources, performance expectations, permissions, and when to prefer this tool over nearby investigation or timeline tools.

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. It documents all three parameters meaningfully: entity_value as an IP/username/hostname identifier, window_minutes as the before-and-after window, and timestamp as an epoch or ISO anchor with current time as default. Minor gaps remain, such as not restating the window_minutes default of 30 or describing boundary inclusivity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: correlate multi-source events within a synchronized time window around an entity. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as splunk_investigate_ip, splunk_investigate_user, or splunk_build_incident_timeline.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement and parameter list.

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