run_sigma

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning a summary, but does not explain side effects (e.g., creating output files, deleting anything, required permissions). No mention of whether it modifies input files or requires network access.

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 concise (one sentence) but at the expense of necessary detail. It is not verbose, but the minimalism leaves gaps that reduce its overall utility.

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 four required string parameters, a tool name implying a security workflow, and the existence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the workflow, prerequisites, or what the output contains, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe any of the four parameters (evtx_path, sigma_rules_path, mapping_path, output_dir) beyond their names, providing no added meaning for an AI agent.

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 tool runs a Chainsaw Sigma hunt and returns a summary, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Chainsaw Sigma hunt'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'rare_events_baseline' and 'run_sigma_lineage' by focusing on a general Sigma hunt, implying a different scope or output.

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 over alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. It simply states what it does without context about when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to guess.

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