convert_rules

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 two conversion modes (native vs delegated), the effect of skip_unsupported, and the role of the target parameter. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists parameters and key conditions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on conversion modes and parameter roles. It does not describe the output format, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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?

Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the schema's parameter information without adding significant new meaning beyond listing the parameters and noting mutual exclusivity.

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 'Convert Sigma rules to backend-native queries' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes between native and delegated targets, differentiating it from sibling tools like parse_rule or fix_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 explains when to use native targets vs delegated sigma-cli mode, including the prerequisite --allow-sigma-cli flag. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or cite alternatives, but the guidance on target selection is clear.

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