validate_rules

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

The description explains the validation process and the optional resolve_sources behavior, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or returns specific output. It does not state that validation is read-only or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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-loading the core purpose and followed by concise parameter guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, the process, and optional behaviors. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error handling, but the core context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with descriptive texts. The description reiterates the yaml/path mutual exclusivity and briefly defines resolve_sources, but adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter.

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 and specifically states the tool's purpose: 'Validate that Sigma rules parse and compile cleanly' and details the validation process (parse, build detection engine, check correlation references). This distinguishes it from siblings like lint_rules, parse_rule, and convert_rules, which have different focuses.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and how to invoke it (accepts inline yaml or path, optional pipelines and resolve_sources). It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the purpose is well-defined.

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