Rootcheck / policy-monitoring findings

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish the non-destructive behavior; the description's 'Read' verb confirms this but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or data-source specifics.

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 sentences deliver the main purpose first and then a concise legacy/alternative note, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool returns, the legacy nature of the module, and the preferred alternative, while the output schema supplies return-shape details. This is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 description does not elaborate on the limit, offset, search, or status parameters; it only reinforces that the data is per-agent, which the schema already states via agent_id. With only 60% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated by summarizing the filtering and pagination semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read rootcheck findings for an agent.' It further clarifies the domain by listing rootkit signatures, hidden processes, and legacy policy-monitoring hits, and distinguishes itself from the sibling wazuh_sca_checks by calling SCA the modern equivalent.

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 names wazuh_sca_checks as the modern equivalent and advises it is 'usually more useful,' giving an agent clear guidance to prefer SCA unless legacy rootcheck data is specifically needed.

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