get_syscheck_results

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the tool detects changes to file attributes but does not disclose behavioral traits such as result freshness, dependency on syscheck being enabled, or that empty results indicate no changes. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 well-structured with sections (overview, args, returns). Every sentence adds value without verbosity. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns. However, it could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., agent must have syscheck module enabled).

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 0%, yet the description adds significant value by explaining both parameters: agent_id (with default '000' for manager) and file (optional path with example). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves File Integrity Monitoring results for an agent, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_syscheck_scan' (starts a scan) and 'clear_syscheck_database' (clears results).

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 basic usage context (query by agent_id, optional file filter, default manager agent). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rootcheck_results' or exclusion cases (e.g., agent not configured for syscheck).

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