get_fim_files

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the tool shows results but does not confirm it is read-only, mention authentication needs, result format, or any potential side effects. The name suggests read-only, but description is too brief to fully inform.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

While no output schema exists, the description mentions the content of results (monitored files, registry keys, changes). It does not detail pagination or result limits, but these are covered by input schema parameters. Overall, adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions file and registry types, which align with the 'type' enum, but provides no additional context on parameter usage or filter behavior.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves FIM results for a Wazuh agent, listing specific resources (files, registry keys, changes). It is distinct from siblings like get_agent_network or get_rootcheck, which cover different agent 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?

Description implies usage for FIM queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_rootcheck for rootkits). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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