anomaly_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only adds a '[READ]' tag. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive metrics.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the critical '[READ]' tag followed by a clear list of metrics and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence is purposeful and no words are wasted.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, lists reported items, and describes the parameter. However, it lacks details on output format or examples, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 single optional parameter 'target' is explained with context ('Ollama target name from config; omit for the default'), which adds value beyond the input schema's minimal type definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well for this simple 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 states it is a read operation ('[READ]') and lists the specific metrics reported ('shadow models, digest drift, high-risk prompts, blocked count'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools that also perform reads or actions by specifying a unique rollup report.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_status or list_models. The description does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit context.

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