secrets_anomalies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement ('Requires secrets.read') and lists the categories of anomalies, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or whether it has side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The list of anomaly types is informative without being verbose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential invocation info (purpose, permission) but omits expected return value or any guidance on how results should be interpreted. It is adequate for a simple detection tool but incomplete regarding output behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('vault anomalies'), and enumerates concrete anomaly types (expired secrets, broad scopes, stale keys, unusual access patterns). It is distinguishable from siblings by focusing on anomaly detection, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from secrets_audit.

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 implies when to use it (to detect anomalies) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like secrets_audit. It lacks exclusions or context about how it differs from other sibling tools.

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