splunk_detect_failed_logins

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, cost/timeouts, or how 'aggregate' works (grouped by user, host, source?). It hints at cross-source scoping but leaves the key aggregation behavior opaque.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args breakdown. No wasted text; the structure is easy to scan.

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?

A full output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and all three params are covered. However, the description omits the aggregation grouping semantics and when-to-use context, which matter for interpreting results of a detection 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains index defaults to _audit and default indexes (beyond the schema's null default), gives the earliest_time default, and defines count as max aggregated rows. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Detect and aggregate') and resource ('failed authentication events') across named sources (Splunk audit, Windows, Linux logs). It is clearly distinguishable from generic search tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby splunk_detect_brute_force sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as splunk_detect_brute_force, splunk_investigate_user, or splunk_search. Prerequisites and selection criteria are left entirely to inference.

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