draft_rule

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses determinism, local operation, and return structure (YAML body, validation result, MITRE IDs, draft notes). No side effects or failure modes mentioned, but sufficient for a tool with this scope.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers usage, returns, and behavioral traits in a single paragraph.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema description and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, when to use, and return envelope. However, it lacks parameter-level guidance, which the output schema likely compensates for.

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?

Schemas have 0% description coverage. The description only hints at 'description' and 'mitre_ttps' parameters via 'plain-English threat summary plus optional MITRE TTP hints'. Other parameters (rule_type, references, target_platform, severity, title, author) are not addressed, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 a natural-language threat description, distinguishing it from siblings 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 caller needs a starting-point sigma rule with plain-English summary and optional MITRE hints. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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