splunk_explain_search_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the analytical transformations (interpretation, distribution highlighting, summarization), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it re-runs or accesses Splunk, or any privacy/rate-limit considerations. The output schema covers return structure, but key behavioral context is absent.

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 front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. The Args section maps cleanly to the two parameters without repeating schema boilerplate.

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?

With two parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and both inputs adequately. However, it is not complete enough to help an agent confidently select this tool over the many related analysis siblings, and it omits behavioral details such as read-only nature or whether it performs any Splunk-side operations.

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 does explain both parameters: `results` is an array of result dictionaries from a search, and `question` is an optional analytical question. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema titles, though it does not specify result array size or shape constraints.

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 gives a specific verb set and resource: interpret search results, highlight statistical distributions, and summarize findings. It is clear that this is a post-processing/analysis tool over an existing results array. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby analysis siblings such as splunk_search_explain, splunk_get_field_summary, or splunk_detect_anomalies.

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?

Usage is implied by the required `results` parameter: call this after obtaining search results to interpret them. The optional `question` parameter hints at answering a specific analytical question. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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