wazuh_agent_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only, aggregate operation (counts, distributions), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention potential performance impact, or specify if it requires special permissions. More explicit safety or scope details would improve transparency.

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?

Description is a single, efficient sentence that delivers the core functionality first and then lists details. It is well-structured and contains no superfluous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the key results: connection counts, OS/platform, version distribution, and stale agents. It does not elaborate on the output format or edge cases, but with an output schema available, this is acceptable.

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?

The only parameter, stale_threshold_hours, is already fully documented in the input schema with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches a fleet-wide health overview with specific breakdowns: counts by connection status, OS/platform, version distribution, and stale agents. The verb 'Get' and resource 'health overview' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like wazuh_list_agents which show raw agent lists.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for daily ops check or before an investigation,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using wazuh_list_agents for detailed agent data.

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