draft_rule

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic, local, no network or LLM call, and describes the return envelope contents. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden well.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently communicates usage context and behavior without unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the main input and optional MITRE hints but lacks detail on other parameters. The output schema is mentioned, which adds 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only explains the 'description' and 'mitre_ttps' parameters. Other parameters like rule_type, references, target_platform, severity, title, and author are left unspecified, requiring inference from defaults.

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 drafts a sigma detection YAML rule from natural language, distinguishing it from sibling tools convert_rule and validate_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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a starting-point sigma rule is needed from a plain-English threat summary. Does not mention when not to use or discuss alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear.

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