wazuh_sca_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the returned data (policies, counts, scores) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'SCA compliance status'. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 a single parameter and output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and what it returns. No gaps given the complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter with a default and description. The description adds context about using the default for the manager itself, which complements but does not significantly extend the schema. Baseline 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 retrieves SCA compliance status for an agent, listing specific outputs (policies, pass/fail counts, overall scores). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wazuh_sca_checks by focusing on status rather than individual checks.

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 implies use for checking compliance status on a specific agent and mentions the default agent_id. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like wazuh_sca_checks (detailed checks) or provide usage exclusions.

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