splunk_get_internal_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the default time window is '-4h' and count caps returned results, implying bounded, read-only retrieval. It does not state permission requirements, hard limits on log_level values actually accepted (e.g. INFO), or whether results are sorted or truncated.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Every line earns its place with no redundancy, though the Args section is slightly duplicative of the parameter names rather than adding syntax detail.

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 explained, and the three parameters are covered. What's missing is anything an agent needs to trust the call: that this is a read-only internal-index query, whether it requires admin privileges to read index=_internal, and whether results are capped by server limits.

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 largely does: it documents all three parameters (log_level as a severity filter with example values, earliest_time as a time window with default, count as a max). Minor gap: count's default of 50 and accepted time-format options (relative vs epoch) are not stated.

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 internal daemon errors and warnings scoped to index=_internal. That index scope distinguishes it from generic siblings like splunk_search or splunk_get_parsing_errors, though it never explicitly contrasts with those. Clear enough that an agent knows what it returns without opening the schema.

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 the phrase 'internal daemon errors', suggesting troubleshooting of Splunk's own runtime rather than data-level issues. No explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance is given, and no mention of how it differs from splunk_get_parsing_errors or splunk_diagnose_performance.

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