lint_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions returning findings and auto-fix availability but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or does not modify files. This leaves some ambiguity about side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers input methods and return fields. It does not explain prerequisites or output format beyond listed fields, but that is adequate for a linting 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It reinforces that path can be a file or directory and that yaml is inline, but these details are already in the schema. No additional semantic nuance is provided.

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 lints Sigma rules against the specification, specifying the verb 'lint' and the resource 'Sigma rules'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like parse_rule or convert_rules by focusing on validation and returning findings with specific fields.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: accepts inline yaml, a file path, or a directory path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage guidance slightly incomplete.

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