splunk_run_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool executes a report and retrieves results, but omits details such as whether the call is blocking or asynchronous, required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The existence of an output schema covers return format, but critical behavioral traits remain undocumented.

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 description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as whether the execution is synchronous, whether it affects report scheduling, or what permissions are needed. For an agent to call it correctly, more transparency is needed despite the simple parameter set.

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. It provides basic meaning for both parameters: 'name' as the report/saved search name and 'count' as the maximum results. However, it lacks details like case sensitivity for 'name' or default behavior for 'count' (though the schema supplies a default). The semantics are adequate but minimal.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a named report and retrieve its generated results.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from siblings like splunk_dispatch_saved_search or splunk_replay_saved_search, which likely have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it, nor does it name any sibling tools as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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