splunk_get_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read operation, which is the key safety signal, but there is no statement about required permissions, whether a missing stanza errors or returns empty, or any rate/consistency caveats.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded. The args list is slightly boilerplate but each line carries semantic value the schema lacks.

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 needn't be described, and both parameters are covered. However, for a tool with 70+ siblings, the absence of any routing guidance to splunk_list_inputs vs splunk_manage_input leaves a real gap in an otherwise adequate definition.

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 carry the parameters, and it does: input_type is explained with concrete examples ('monitor', 'tcp/raw', 'http', 'script') and name is clarified as 'stanza name or port'. What's missing is the relationship between the two (that name's form depends on input_type) and any case/format rules.

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: retrieve configuration and status of one input stanza, with 'specific' implicitly contrasting with splunk_list_inputs. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the sibling tools (list_inputs / manage_input) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 only implied by 'specific input stanza' – the agent can infer this is the single-item read versus splunk_list_inputs for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no exclusion (e.g. that manage_input should be used to change a stanza).

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