get_ossec_configuration_raw

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the output is plain text with XML formatting and comments preserved. However, it omits details such as file size implications, authentication requirements, or potential performance impact. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a returns line. It front-loads the essential purpose in the first sentence and adds minimal necessary detail, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear return), the description is mostly complete. It explains the output format and preservation of comments. However, it misses an opportunity to contrast with the sibling 'get_ossec_configuration' which would provide full context for selection. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might cover return details, but its absence from provided information is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter semantics because none are needed. The return value description is clear.

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 retrieves the raw OSSEC configuration file content as plain text, preserving XML formatting and comments. This specific verb and resource, combined with 'raw' in the name, distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_ossec_configuration' which likely returns structured data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative, particularly the sibling 'get_ossec_configuration'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which raw content is preferred over parsed output.

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