Chainsaw: read a mapping

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful domain behavior: mappings determine which Sigma logsources apply to which Windows events, which explains the tool's role beyond simple reading.

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 short and front-loaded: it states what the tool describes, then why mappings matter, then when to use it. Every sentence contributes to selecting or understanding the tool.

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 read-only mapping inspection tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, domain relevance, and usage scenario. It does not detail the return structure, but it does list the main content returned, and no output schema is provided.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the default behavior for name and the purpose of include_yaml. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('Sigma-to-event-log mapping file') and immediately lists the relevant contents: groups, filters, and field translations. This distinguishes it from sibling rule/search tools that operate on rules rather than mapping files.

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 gives a clear diagnostic scenario: read this when a Sigma rule you expect is not firing. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as searching rules instead.

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