query_session_anomalies

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the result is scoped to the calling user, limited by `limit`, and ordered newest first. The term 'recent' is vague, and no response format is given, but for a simple read-only query this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It efficiently covers the resource, scope, limit, and ordering without 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned, for whom, with a limit and ordering. It lacks specifics about the time window for 'recent' and the exact response structure, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 is the only source explaining the `limit` parameter. It clearly states that the tool returns 'up to `limit` rows', giving explicit meaning to the parameter beyond its type and bounds.

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 function with a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource as 'session anomaly events', enumerates the event types, and scopes it to 'the calling user'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like generate_policy or list_tenant_users.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch recent session anomalies for the current user. It implies a security monitoring use case, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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