wazuh_rules_coverage_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generate[s] a coverage map' and mentions analysis, but does not describe side effects (likely read-only), computational cost, or limits in detail. The limit parameter (1-1000) is implied but not emphasized as a behavioral constraint. The output schema exists and covers return values, partially mitigating the lack of description.

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 primary action and resource, then adds context. It is concise and efficient, with no redundant information. A slightly more structured format (e.g., separate sentences for purpose and usage) could improve readability, but the current form is effective.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present). The description covers the main use case and the output is detailed by the output schema. It does not explain the return format or provide examples, but given the schema richness, this is acceptable. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, which would have improved completeness.

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%: each parameter has a description (framework with list of frameworks, min_level default 5, limit default 500). The description adds context by listing the frameworks and tying to compliance analysis, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('generate a coverage map') and clearly identifies the resource ('Wazuh rules' mapping to multiple frameworks). It names the specific compliance frameworks (MITRE ATT&CK, NIST 800-53, etc.) and explicitly states the purpose ('compliance gap analysis and detection engineering'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wazuh_compliance_report' or 'wazuh_search_mitre' which have different scopes.

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 mentions the tool is 'essential for compliance gap analysis and detection engineering', providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'wazuh_compliance_report' for general reporting or 'wazuh_search_mitre' for MITRE-specific queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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