wazuh_search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as searching raw events and mentions IOCs, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any pagination, rate limits, or scope limitations beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence specifies the action and scope; the second provides usage examples and purpose. Front-loaded and efficient.

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's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the core purpose and usage. The schema details parameters and the output schema explains return structure, so the description does not need to reiterate those.

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 minimal value by giving examples of search terms (IPs, file hashes, commands) but these are already implied by the parameter description 'Search term — IP address, file hash, command, process name, etc.' in 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 'Search raw security events across all Wazuh agents' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wazuh_search_mitre (MITRE techniques) and wazuh_list_alerts (alerts) by specifying 'raw security events' and mentioning IOCs.

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 specifies 'Use this for deep threat hunting' and provides IOC examples, giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as wazuh_list_alerts for filtered alerts or wazuh_search_mitre for MITRE technique search.

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