Read manager configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting it reads the 'running' configuration and confirms 'actually enabled' settings, which implies no side effects or mutation.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action and optional narrowing are stated first, followed by a practical use case. Every clause contributes meaning.

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?

With an output schema present and both parameters fully documented, the description supplies sufficient context for invoking the tool correctly. It does not need to explain return values or further details.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description reinforces the 'section' parameter with concrete examples ('global', 'remote', 'syscheck', etc.) and clarifies that omission returns the whole configuration, adding marginal value beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource ('manager's running ossec.conf configuration'), with optional narrowing by section. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on search, agents, alerts, and other manager functions.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Use this to confirm what is actually enabled — which modules, integrations, log sources or remote settings.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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