list_by_logsource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it filters, but does not explain whether multiple criteria are combined with AND/OR, what happens when no filters are provided, how results are ordered, or what the return format is.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and includes illustrative examples without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple filtered-list tool.

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 simple optional-parameter filter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify whether parameters can be combined, whether at least one is required, or what the response looks like, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples for product, category, and service, which reinforces the schema, but it does not add meaningfully new semantics beyond what the property descriptions already provide.

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 action ('Filter Sigma detection rules') and the exact filtering dimensions (logsource category, product, or service), with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_by_mitre, list_by_severity, and search_detections.

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 is implied: use this tool when you need to filter Sigma rules by logsource fields. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_detections or list_by_data_source, leaving some routing to inference.

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