splunk_create_saved_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute one important behavioral fact: write mode is required. Beyond that it says nothing about duplicate-name handling, whether the search executes on creation, or what errors to expect, which are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence before the parameter list, so the agent gets the essential action immediately. The args block is appropriately sized for six undocumented parameters, though a few entries restate the parameter name without adding meaning.

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 return values need not be described, and all six parameters get some coverage. For a write operation with zero annotations, though, the definition omits failure modes (duplicate name, invalid cron, nonexistent app namespace) that an agent would need before committing a mutation.

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 docstring arg list does real work: it explains that 'search' is an SPL query, gives a cron syntax example, and states the 'app' default of 'search'. Some entries are near-tautological ('description: Description of the report/saved search'), and the is_scheduled/cron_schedule interaction is not clarified.

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 ('Create a new saved search or scheduled report'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like splunk_update_saved_search and splunk_list_saved_searches by verb alone. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 parenthetical '(requires write mode)' gives one concrete prerequisite for invoking the tool, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to create versus update or dispatch an existing saved search, and the relationship between is_scheduled and cron_schedule is left for the agent to infer.

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