manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It thoroughly covers behavioral nuances: non-2xx responses are returned as-is, specific endpoints now return 404 which is correct, response schemas have changed, and the security root is deliberately restricted. This is exceptionally transparent about edge cases and limitations.

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 long but well-structured, with the purpose stated up front followed by relevant context, bullet points, and a clean Args section. The length is justified by the complexity and the need to explain the unusual passthrough behavior and API volatility. It is not excessively wordy—each sentence adds useful information.

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 passthrough tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return behavior (unchanged, non-2xx as-is), lists verified working endpoints, documents changed response schemas, and clearly delimits the security scope. Since the tool returns responses unchanged and an output schema exists (likely generic), no further return-value detail is necessary. This fully equips an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section gives a one-line explanation for each parameter: path with an example ('/agents') and params as 'Optional query parameters.' This adds basic meaning but does not detail the structure of `params` (free-form object) or provide format constraints. It meets the minimum threshold but leaves room for more specificity.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Issue a GET against the Wazuh manager API and return the response unchanged.' It identifies the verb (GET), the resource (Wazuh manager API), and the behavior (unchanged passthrough). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it adds no interpretation, making its role unique.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when raw API responses are needed, and it notes the API is volatile. It implicitly excludes security enumeration by restricting the `security` root and stating the tool is 'meant for agent and event data.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give a direct 'use this instead of X' comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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