search_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'full-text search', but fails to mention important aspects like pagination (limit/offset), result ordering, performance implications, or any side effects. The schema provides parameters but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage examples, which could improve clarity for an agent. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be more 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, error scenarios, or how the search interacts with other alert retrieval tools. For a search tool, more context about search syntax, filtering behavior, and pagination is expected.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types already in the schema. For example, it doesn't explain the search syntax for 'query' or the meaning of 'level' as rule severity.

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 verb 'Perform full-text search' and the resource 'Wazuh security alerts', which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like 'get_alerts' (likely list/filter without full-text) and 'search_rules' (searches rules, not alerts).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_alerts' for specific alerts or 'search_rules' for rule searches. It lacks any context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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