Fleet health summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra transparency beyond noting it is an aggregation/health summary, which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions, but no significant additional behavioral context is provided.

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 with a clear structure: first listing the aggregated contents, then stating its primary use case. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, the description provides all needed context: what data is aggregated (connection states, OS, outdated versions, no-group agents) and what question it answers (deployment health). No output schema is present, but that is not required for this simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description cannot add parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline for high coverage applies. No parameter details are needed or provided.

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clearly states the tool's purpose: aggregating agent fleet health including connection-state counts, OS distribution, outdated agents, and agents with no group. It explicitly positions it as 'the fastest way to answer how healthy is my deployment', distinguishing it from more detailed or specific tools like wazuh_list_agents or wazuh_health.

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 gives implicit guidance by calling it 'the fastest way' to assess health, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer them instead. The use case is clear, but there are no direct exclusions or comparisons to siblings, leaving the decision partially to inference.

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