fix_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that unsafe fixes are never auto-applied, that write persists changes to disk, and that formatting is preserved. This adequately discloses key behavioral traits without contradictions.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and provides necessary details efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more organized with bullet points or clearer separation of return value and optional behavior.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (fixed YAML and counts). It covers all parameters and safety constraints. It lacks mention of error handling or validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates constraints already in the schema (e.g., write:true only with path). It adds no new parameter-level information beyond summarizing the purpose, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 applies safe auto-fixes to Sigma YAML, listing examples like lowercase keys and typos. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on fixing rather than listing, parsing, or converting 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 that unsafe fixes are never applied and that write:true requires a file path. It also mentions optional lint_rules to restrict fixes, providing context on when to use parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lint_rules or convert_rules.

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