convert_rule

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

Without annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses conversion lossiness warnings and actionable error envelopes (pip install commands). It does not mention any destructive or mutation behavior, which is acceptable for a conversion tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values excessively. It covers the primary output, lossiness warnings, and error handling. However, the lack of parameter detail leaves a gap in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the three parameters (yaml_content, target, config). The user must infer parameter usage from the general description, which is insufficient.

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's function: converting a sigma YAML rule into a SIEM-native query string. It specifies the input, output, and target SIEMs (Splunk, Elasticsearch, Wazuh), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_rule and draft_rule.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the caller has a validated sigma rule' and lists target SIEMs, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply the appropriate workflow.

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