convert_yara_to_sigma

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it largely delivers: it discloses that output is approximate/best-effort, names the mapping strategy, and states the invariant that a manual-review warning is always included. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid YARA or the exact output format, but the core quality caveat is explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the action, scope, and required warning are each stated once and front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a moderately complex transformation tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, fidelity caveat, and scope but leaves the return format unstated and does not say how unsupported YARA constructs are handled. An agent can likely call it correctly, but it would be guessing about the response shape.

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 100% — every parameter (yara_rule, product, title_override, logsource_category) already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild context by tying the conversion to process_creation/CommandLine, aligning with the logsource_category default, but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Convert a YARA rule to an approximate Sigma rule' — and immediately distinguishes this conversion direction from the sibling convert_sigma_to_kql. It also bounds the scope by naming supported condition types (string/hex) and the target log source (process_creation CommandLine).

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?

Usage context is present but implied: the 'focused on string/hex conditions' and 'mapped to process_creation (CommandLine)' phrasing tells an agent which YARA rules are suitable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, exclusions, or pointer to alternatives such as convert_sigma_to_kql. An agent must infer that non-string/hex rules will convert poorly.

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