reverse_convert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is 'a reviewable skeleton,' specifies the supported Lucene subset in detail, and clearly reports error behavior for 'Boosting, fuzzy/proximity, and non-numeric ranges.' This adds meaningful 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 three dense, information-packed sentences with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers scope, dialect details, metadata requirements, and error conditions.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, dialect scope, required metadata inputs, and error conditions. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact return structure beyond 'draft Sigma rule (YAML),' but the description is otherwise sufficient for operation.

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 parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining why metadata parameters are needed (query carries no metadata) and provides detailed syntax for the dialect parameter, going beyond the schema's brief field labels.

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 function: 'Reverse-convert a SIEM query into a draft Sigma rule (YAML).' It is specific in verb and resource and distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_rules by explicitly indicating the reverse direction (SIEM query → Sigma) and the YAML output format.

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 useful context by noting that 'a query carries no metadata' and instructs to pass title/id/level/status and logsource fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_rules or parse_rule, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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