convert_rule

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses successful output (converted query + warnings) and failure modes (missing pySigma or backend packages yield actionable pip install commands). Does not discuss auth or rate limits, but these are irrelevant 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 front-loaded with the main action and uses a clear structure: purpose, usage, details. It is concise with three sentences, no redundant information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage, primary output, and error handling. It lacks parameter explanations but is adequate for a simple conversion tool when combined with the schema.

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%. The description only implicitly associates yaml_content with the sigma rule and target with backend names, but does not explain the config parameter or enumerate target options. It adds limited semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 it converts a sigma YAML rule to a SIEM-native query string, specifying three target backends. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'draft_rule' and 'validate_rule' by focusing on conversion rather than drafting or validation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the caller has a validated sigma rule' and lists target SIEMs. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear. Mentions return of conversion warnings and error envelopes for missing dependencies.

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