Read an agent's applied configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it reads the configuration 'actually loaded' by the agent, which is a behavioral nuance implying it returns the effective runtime state, not just the configured value. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences plus a short list of common pairs. No redundant wording, no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives motivation, and the list provides practical examples.

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 simplicity, output schema presence, and clear parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. There is no obvious missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (agent_id, component, configuration) at 100% coverage. The description adds concrete example values and pairing guidance (e.g., component='syscheck' configuration='syscheck'), which enhances the schema's basic descriptions and helps the agent pick correct combinations.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource: 'the configuration a running agent has actually loaded for one module'. It also distinguishes from siblings like wazuh_get_agent (agent info) and wazuh_manager_config (manager config) by focusing on agent-applied configuration.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'useful for confirming a group change or centralised config reached the endpoint'. It also gives common component/configuration pairs, which serves as practical guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the context is strong.

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