Chainsaw: lint rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by stating the output nature (files that fail to load and why) and the Sigma unsupported-modifier use case, though it doesn't mention rate limits or output structure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the usage trigger. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing what the report contains (failing files and reasons). It stops short of describing return format or how failures are emitted, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters (tau, kind, path) are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly gestures at the Sigma/kind scoping ('Sigma sub-tree') and never explains the tau or kind parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate rules with `chainsaw lint`') and specifies the outcome ('report which files fail to load and why'). No sibling offers linting, so an agent can place this tool immediately.

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?

Gives explicit trigger contexts: after chainsaw_save_rule, or on a Sigma sub-tree to surface unsupported modifiers. It names a sibling for sequencing, but does not state when NOT to use it or the alternatives for pure inspection.

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