List CDB lists

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as performance implications or rate limits, but given that the annotations cover the safety profile, a moderate score is appropriate. The description is consistent with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It includes relevant examples and clarifies the optional behavior, achieving high clarity in a compact form.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation, and the description covers the primary purpose and output. However, it omits details about the limit and offset parameters and does not describe the structure of the returned contents, which might be relevant for effective use. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description alone leaves some gaps.

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?

Only two of the four parameters (filename and include_contents) have descriptions in the schema, while limit and offset lack any explanation. The main description also does not elaborate on pagination or filtering semantics. This incomplete coverage leaves agents uncertain about the exact meaning and usage of the parameters.

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 precisely states that the tool lists CDB lists, including their purpose in rules (e.g., known-bad IPs, allowed users, audit keys). It also notes the optional inclusion of contents, making the function unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from other Wazuh list tools without needing further inference.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as wazuh_list_rules or wazuh_list_agents. While the mention of 'used by rules' hints at a context, it does not name alternatives or specify conditions for selection. Agents would need to infer the appropriate tool from naming or external knowledge.

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