detectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It reveals implementation details (POST /_plugins/_security_analytics/detectors/_search with match_all), response nesting, and the fact that these detectors produce wazuh-findings-v5-* documents. It does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, but read-only behavior is strongly implied by 'List or fetch.'

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 and every sentence earns its place. It provides essential context, implementation notes, and a clear Args block. Despite being longer than average, the information is dense and relevant, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers action semantics, parameters, defaults, implementation behavior, and the nested response structure. The output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: action's allowed values, detector_id's requirement when action is 'get', and size's purpose with a default. This adds meaning far beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List or fetch OpenSearch Security Analytics detectors.' It specifies the resource (detectors) and the two primary actions (list and get). It further differentiates from sibling tools by explaining that detectors in Wazuh 5 are indexer-based, providing unique context.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use 'list' versus 'get' and notes that no list-all endpoint exists, so list is implemented via a search endpoint. It also clarifies that detector documents are nested under the 'detector' path, which is important for searching by name. This is strong practical guidance.

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