splunk_search_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the analytical dimensions (structure validation, risk, anti-patterns, cost estimation), which implies a non-executing, read-only operation. But it never explicitly states that the SPL is not run against the index, nor does it mention resource cost of the analysis itself, permissions required, or whether cost estimation uses historical data.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the Args block is terse. There is mild waste in duplicating the schema parameter names verbatim, and a truncated trailing newline, but nothing that meaningfully dilutes the signal.

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 there are only two parameters. The critical gap is behavioral: for a tool that could be confused with execution-oriented siblings (splunk_search, splunk_search_preview, splunk_optimize_spl), the definition never clarifies non-execution or its relationship to them, and with zero annotations there is no structured fallback.

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 does address both parameters ('spl: SPL query to analyze', 'earliest_time: Optional earliest time bound'), which is better than nothing. But it adds no format detail: the expected Splunk relative-time syntax for earliest_time (e.g., '-24h@h') and whether it affects cost estimation are unstated, and 'SPL query to analyze' restates the name more than it explains it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate SPL structure, analyze risk, performance anti-patterns, and cost estimation.' An agent can immediately tell this is a static-analysis tool for SPL. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like splunk_optimize_spl, splunk_search_preview, or splunk_explain_search_results, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as splunk_optimize_spl (which also concerns SPL quality) or splunk_search (which executes). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of a workflow context (e.g., 'run before splunk_search to check cost'). The agent must guess the routing.

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