wazuh_agent_command

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

The description uses a 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and mentions the confirmation flow, which adds transparency. However, it does not detail specific behavioral traits such as potential impact on the agent, permissions required, or whether the command runs synchronously. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise: two lines with clear front-loading of the destructive warning. Every sentence adds value, including the safety reminder. No unnecessary words.

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?

Although the output schema exists and the description covers key safety aspects, it omits details like return value format, required agent state (e.g., online), or that the command runs via active-response. For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., 'Full command string to execute on the agent (use with extreme caution)'). The tool description adds little beyond what the schema provides, repeating safety cues. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool executes an arbitrary command on a remote Wazuh agent via active-response infrastructure. The verb 'execute' and resource 'remote Wazuh agent' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like wazuh_run_active_response by mentioning the same confirmation flow.

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 some guidance on the confirmation flow and safety requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wazuh_run_active_response. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or comparison to siblings.

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