splunk_list_macros

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and only weakly delivers. 'List' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of permissions needed, pagination/truncation behavior when count is exceeded, or ordering; the only substantive note is that macro arguments and definition strings are included in results.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and free of filler. The trailing 'Args:' block is somewhat boilerplate for a single parameter but is not wasteful.

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 need no explanation, and a one-parameter list tool is low complexity. Still, the absence of annotations means the description should say more about read-only nature and result limits than it does.

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 schema only shows 'Count' as an integer with default 100 and no meaning. The description compensates partially by defining it as 'Maximum number of macros,' which resolves the ambiguity about what is being counted, but it omits the default and what happens when the limit is reached.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a specific resource ('configured search macros') and enumerates what is returned (arguments, definition strings). No sibling tool deals with macros, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to prefer (e.g., splunk_get_configuration or splunk_list_configurations for configuration inspection). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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