splunk_get_field_summary

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 does disclose that the summary is based on sampled events via sample_count and that it returns statistical distributions and top values, which is useful. However, it omits permissions, cost/rate-limit implications, and whether the operation is strictly read-only or executes a 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact. There is little waste, though the parameter list could be formatted more cleanly for machine parsing.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers the basic inputs. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks enough behavioral and usage context to be fully complete for an agent choosing between this and related search/sampling 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 for all three parameters. It does briefly document every parameter (index, sourcetype filter, sample_count), but it omits important semantics such as default value, allowed ranges, and exact sourcetype matching behavior.

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: obtain statistical distribution of fields and top values for an index and sourcetype. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent tools like splunk_sample_events or splunk_search, which could also surface field/value information.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative. The description implies it is for field distribution summaries, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to splunk_sample_events, splunk_search, or splunk_list_sourcetypes.

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