splunk_get_index

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; 'Query' does imply a read-only operation, which is the correct safety signal. But it doesn't say what happens when the index doesn't exist, whether elevated roles are required, or what access scope is needed — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool. An output schema is present, so omitting return-value detail is acceptable.

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?

Two compact lines with the capability front-loaded and the parameter after it. The 'Args:' block is slightly formal for a single parameter but costs almost nothing; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and required 'name' documented with examples, an agent has what it needs to call it. The only real omission is what to do when the index is unknown and how it relates to list_indexes, which is a routing concern rather than a calling one.

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 — and it does, giving both the meaning ('Index name') and concrete examples ('main', '_internal', 'wineventlog') that go beyond the bare {type: string, title: Name} property. That is enough to invoke correctly; only whitespace/case-sensitivity conventions are absent.

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 ('Query configuration, retention policies, and storage paths for a specific index'), naming exactly what data comes back, which is more informative than a bare 'get index'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by scoping to 'a specific index', but never names splunk_list_indexes or splunk_index_stats, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent would have to deduce on its own that splunk_list_indexes is the way to discover a valid index name first, and there's no signal about when to prefer splunk_index_stats or splunk_get_configuration over this tool.

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