wazuh_incident_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool traces back through related events on the 'same agent' and builds a chronological timeline. While it does not mention whether it is read-only or potential failure modes, the key behavioral aspects are sufficiently covered.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. No superfluous information, and the critical details are front-loaded.

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 has an output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the core functionality (tracing events on the same agent, chronological timeline). It does not explain edge cases or what constitutes 'related events,' but the output schema likely handles return structure, making this sufficient.

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 schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions (alert_id, lookback_hours, max_events). The description reinforces the purpose of the tool but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline score of 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's purpose: after identifying a security incident, reconstruct a timeline of related events from a given alert ID. It uses specific verbs ('reconstruct', 'traces back', 'builds') and distinguishes itself from siblings like wazuh_get_alert (single alert) and wazuh_search_events (general search).

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 indicates when to use the tool ('after identifying a security incident'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different scenarios, which would be helpful for an AI agent deciding between similar tools.

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