wazuh_manager_stats

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 describes the tool as a retrieval operation with no side effects mentioned, but it does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss any impact. A 3 is appropriate as it is truthful but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and use cases. It could mention that omitting daemon returns all stats, but the schema’s default behavior is clear. The output schema handles return value details.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'daemon', listing valid values. The description adds high-level context about the stats returned but doesn't detail how the parameter affects output. Baseline 3 for good schema coverage with minor added value.

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 retrieves Wazuh manager daemon statistics, listing specific metrics (EPS, queue sizes, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wazuh_cluster_node_stats and wazuh_manager_logs by focusing on manager daemon internals vs. cluster or logs.

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 explicitly identifies use cases: 'capacity planning and troubleshooting performance issues.' While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is sufficient for typical selection.

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