Find software across the fleet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns matching package and version per agent, and it explains the agent_limit fallback when the fleet-wide endpoint is unavailable. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't specify error conditions or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and use case, followed by the return value. No fluff or repetition. Every word adds information.

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 description covers what it does, why it's used (vulnerability response), examples, and the output format. It also addresses edge behavior (fallback scanning). Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has all the necessary context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover all parameters 100% (package, version, limit, agent_limit) with clear meanings. The description adds a tiny bit of extra context for version ('Optional exact version') but largely repeats the schema. Since the schema is already thorough, a baseline score of 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's primary function ('Search for a package across every agent at once') and gives concrete, recognizable examples ('which hosts have log4j installed'). It is distinct from sibling tools like wazuh_search_alerts or wazuh_list_agents, and the scope (fleet-wide) is unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames the tool for vulnerability response questions ('the tool for vulnerability response questions like...'), which tells an agent exactly when to invoke it. It also implies when not to use it (when a single agent is the target, other agent-specific tools would apply). The fallback behavior for agent_limit is described, giving practical guidance.

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