lint_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the returned findings and the accepted input forms, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether directories are traversed recursively, or how errors are surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its output contract come first, the accepted input forms second. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully fills the gap by naming the returned finding fields. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it, though the relationship to validate_rules and fix_rules remains unstated.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the mutual exclusivity and path resolution rules. The description's restatement of 'inline yaml, a file path, or a directory path' adds a small amount of orientation but nothing the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — linting Sigma rules against the specification — and enumerates the finding fields returned. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling validate_rules or explains what linting adds over validation, so an agent must guess between the two.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The mention of 'whether an auto-fix is available' implicitly points toward fix_rules as a follow-up, but the choice between lint_rules and validate_rules is left to inference.

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