anomaly_report

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and '[READ]' merely restates it. The description does add useful context by enumerating the four anomaly categories the rollup covers, but it omits the aggregation window/time range and any auth or scoping constraints, which matter for interpreting an anomaly report.

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 compact lines with the read tag front-loaded and the parameter note last; nothing is padded. The category list is dense but each item is informative rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the reported categories, which is adequate. However, for an anomaly rollup the missing time window/aggregation scope leaves an agent unable to interpret or scope results confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'target' is identified as an Ollama target name from config, and the default behavior (omit for the default) is explained. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare anyOf string/null schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: a read-only rollup reporting shadow models, digest drift, high-risk prompts, and blocked count. That is far more concrete than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like usage_events, server_status, or model_provenance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the many sibling reporting tools. The only guidance present ('omit for the default') concerns the parameter, not tool selection or exclusions.

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