test_exemplars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (pass/fail), path confinement to `--rules-dir`, pipeline sourcing rules, and an important error-vs-finding distinction. It omits details like failure output format and whether execution is sandboxed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then constraints, then error semantics. Domain jargon ('rsigma.exemplars', 'confined') is dense but each sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

Covers the action, the required input constraint, optional pipelines, and the crucial distinction between configuration errors and assertion findings, which an agent needs to interpret results. With no output schema, it adequately signals that results are pass/fail, though it could say more about result detail.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds value by strengthening mutual exclusivity to 'exactly one' of yaml/path and by clarifying that pipelines are builtin names or confined YAML paths, beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Replay embedded rsigma.exemplars') and resource (Sigma detection and correlation rules) with the outcome (pass/fail results). It carves out a distinct niche versus siblings like validate_rules and lint_rules by framing failures as findings rather than load errors, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule — 'Provide exactly one of inline `yaml` or a `path`' — and clarifies the error taxonomy (configuration errors vs findings). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over lint_rules/validate_rules, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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