wazuh_run_active_response

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature, the safety layer (confirmation prompt, token requirement), and that it does not execute by default. This is highly transparent and covers all critical behavioral aspects.

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 clear paragraphs: first warns of destructiveness and lists examples, second explains safety process. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with critical warning.

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 destructive tool with a complex safety flow, the description covers default behavior, confirmation process, token requirements, and common commands. Output schema exists, so no need to describe return values. Complete for the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the safety mechanism but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The command and arguments examples are helpful but not extensive.

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 starts with 'Trigger an active-response command on a Wazuh agent' and lists examples like blocking IPs, quarantine, custom scripts. It clearly identifies the verb (trigger/run) and resource (active response on agent), distinguishing it from siblings like wazuh_agent_command which likely sends generic commands.

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 states the default no-execution behavior and the two-step confirmation process with token. It provides common command values and argument format. While it doesn't explicitly compare with siblings, the safety mechanism strongly guides usage, earning a 4.

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