tester_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'Read-only by design,' describes the underlying HTTP API call, notes that it requires WAZUH_ENGINE_URL because the server runs in the manager container, and explains session lifecycle limitations. This goes far beyond a simple 'list' description.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence provides essential context: the tool's purpose, the logtest error scenario, network requirements, read-only nature, sibling endpoints, and the action parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds technical details in a logical order. It could be tightened slightly but is not verbose.

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 all necessary context: what the tool lists, why it exists, how to access it (WAZH_ENGINE_URL), what happens if you don't use it, and why only 'list' is supported. The output schema covers return values, so no additional return documentation is needed. This is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'action' with no description or enum. The description compensates by stating 'Args: action: Only "list" is supported.' This clarifies the only valid value and the default behavior, which is sufficient for such a trivial parameter. It could elaborate more on what 'list' returns, but that is covered by the output 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the Wazuh 5 engine test sessions — the environments logtest can use.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like logtest (the client) and search (finding data). It also clarifies the tool's role in resolving environment errors.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'logtest answers a call naming an environment that does not exist with HTTP 200 and ... This tool is how to find out which environments there actually are.' It also warns against alternatives: 'The engine also exposes session/post, session/delete and session/reload; none of them are wired up here.' and explains why a create tool would be useless. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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