author_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (reporting and scaffolding a template) and implies it is a non-destructive reporting tool, but it does not clarify whether any file writes occur, how the 'active config' is determined, or what happens on input errors. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Report') and efficiently packs the key output details without any filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values (ADS sections, missing sections, scaffolded template) and input options. It lacks information about error handling, output formatting, or how the active config is resolved, but these are secondary for a report tool. The core completeness is solid, though not exhaustive.

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 per the rubric, the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names ('yaml' and 'path') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain mutual exclusivity, directory support, or resolution behavior, which the schema already covers.

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's purpose: 'Report each detection rule's ADS sections, the required sections it is missing under the active config, and a scaffolded `rsigma.ads.*` template to complete.' This uses a specific verb ('Report') with a resource ('detection rule's ADS sections') and details the exact output, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `lint_rules` or `convert_rules`.

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 implies usage by stating what it does and that it accepts inline YAML or a file path, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when it's appropriate, but there is no direct comparison to siblings.

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