splunk_list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Discover" and "list" imply a read-only operation and the phrase "with event counts" tells the agent what each result row carries, but ordering/aggregation behavior, whether counts are time-bounded, and the cost of scanning all indexes are unstated.

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 descriptive sentence followed by a compact Args block – front-loaded with the outcome, then the inputs. No padding, though the Args prose is nearly redundant with the parameter names.

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 inputs are covered. However, for a discovery tool whose usefulness depends on knowing how results are ordered (e.g. by event count) and whether counts are scoped to a time window, those omissions leave a real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only documentation for both parameters: it explains that index is a filter (implying all indexes when omitted) and that count caps the number of sources. Only the default of 100 is left to the schema, which is minor.

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 ("Discover event sources across indexes with event counts"), which is clearly distinct from siblings like splunk_list_sourcetypes and splunk_list_hosts. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is by inference rather than by routing language.

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 guidance on when to choose this over splunk_list_sourcetypes, splunk_list_hosts, splunk_check_source_coverage, or splunk_get_field_summary, which all overlap on source discovery. The agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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