wazuh_list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool returns and its filtering capabilities, which is expected. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, which would be required for a higher score.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and output, then lists key features. Every part is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 6 optional parameters, an output schema, and is a simple listing operation, the description covers the main points: what it does, what it returns, and how to filter/paginate. It omits details about sorting and the 'older_than' parameter, but the output schema exists to provide additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing key parameters (status, search, pagination) but does not introduce new meaning or usage details beyond the schema.

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 action ('List'), resource ('all Wazuh agents'), and the key attributes returned ('status, OS, version, and last connection'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like wazuh_get_agent (single agent) and wazuh_agent_health (health status).

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 specific usage guidance: filtering by status, searching by name/IP, and controlling pagination. It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for listing agents with filters), but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like wazuh_get_agent for single-agent queries.

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