splunk_sample_events

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 a meaningful behavioral trait – sampling rather than full scanning, implying results are representative/partial, not exhaustive – but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, or whether sample selection is random.

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 purpose sentence front-loaded, followed by a compact args block. No filler. The Args formatting is slightly terse but each line earns its place.

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 not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. However, for a zero-annotation tool with many sibling search/event tools, the description leaves the caller without guidance on how sampling differs from splunk_search_events or what 'representative' entails.

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 it largely does: it marks index as required, sourcetype as an optional filter, and documents count's default (10) and ceiling (100), which the schema omits entirely. Only the 'anyOf string|null' nature of sourcetype is left implicit.

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: retrieve raw event samples from Splunk, plus the distinguishing scope 'without full table scans'. It is distinguishable from heavyweight siblings like splunk_search and splunk_search_events in spirit, but never names them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'without full table scans' implies a lightweight preview/inspection use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. splunk_search_events for full result sets). Usage is only indirectly signalled.

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