detect_anomalies

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

No annotations provided, but the description states 'Read-only; never mutates secrets or the audit log' and describes the output format: 'Returns one line per finding formatted `[type] description`, or "No anomalies detected"'. This adequately discloses behavioral traits for a read-only operation.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage guidance, safety, and output format. No wasted words.

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 simple tool (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides everything needed: purpose, usage, safety, and return format. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter `key` with a clear description. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Scan', the resource 'audit history', and specific behaviors like 'burst reads of the same key, off-hours access'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming alternatives (`health_check`, `agent_scan`) and their use cases.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use as a quick triage signal when investigating a single key or before letting an agent rotate credentials; prefer `health_check` for a scope-wide decay+anomaly summary, and `agent_scan` for multi-project JSON reports with optional auto-rotation.' This clearly states when to use and when not to use.

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