Chainsaw: search 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 safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the return format ('Returns rule URIs readable as resources'), telling the agent results can be fed straight into resource reads.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose leads and usage follows. Efficient, though the second sentence is fairly dense with three distinct scenarios.

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, all-optional filter tool with a 100%-documented schema, the definition covers purpose, usage scenarios and return format. It leaves minor gaps around how filters combine and pagination expectations, but nothing that would prevent a correct call.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories (keyword, ATT&CK tag, level, status, logsource) without adding syntax, matching rules, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (detection rules) plus the filter axes. It distinguishes itself from chainsaw_get_rule (single rule) and chainsaw_hunt only implicitly; no explicit sibling differentiation is offered.

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 three concrete scenarios (explain a detection name from a hunt, check coverage for a technique, pick a sub-tree for a focused hunt), which is strong usage context. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when-not to use it.

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