art_map_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Pure string analysis — never executes anything' and enumerates the four match categories, which is important behavioral context. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a static analysis 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it explains the analysis type, the output categories, the additional gap identification, and the safety guarantee. It is slightly long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return value by listing match statuses and the missed-tests identification. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, though exact output structure is not specified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds general context about field-by-field cross-referencing but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('parse', 'cross-reference') and resource ('Sigma rule's detection conditions' against 'Atomic Red Team test artifacts'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling ART tools by describing the match matrix output and the unique condition-status taxonomy.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to map Sigma rule conditions to ART coverage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the static-analysis framing and 'never executes anything' provide clear context.

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