splunk_investigate_user

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the classes of evidence returned (actions, resources, IPs, privilege usage), implying a read-only audit, but says nothing about permissions required, cost/latency of a wide time range, or result-volume behavior. Output schema covers return shape, which limits the gap.

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 front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list; nothing is padded. The Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but still earns its space given zero schema descriptions.

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?

A minimal but workable definition for a 3-parameter read tool with an output schema. It is missing the routing information (when to pick this over splunk_get_user or splunk_investigate_ip) and any note on time-range cost that an agent would need to call it well.

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% and parameters carry only bare titles, so any description helps. The Args block gives one-line glosses for all three ('Target username', 'Time range to audit', 'Maximum results') and adds the audit-framing of earliest_time, but omits accepted time syntax (e.g. -24h@h) and count limits already defaulted in the schema.

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 (audit) and a concrete scope for the resource: user actions, accessed resources, IP origins, privilege usage. That distinguishes it in spirit from splunk_get_user/splunk_list_users, but the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 guidance, no exclusions, no pointer to alternatives such as splunk_get_user (profile details), splunk_investigate_ip, or splunk_detect_failed_logins. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the activity-audit path rather than the user-lookup path.

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