detect_novelty_anomaly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says the tool 'runs' a detector but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The behavior is essentially restated from the tool name without additional context.

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 a single sentence that communicates the tool's core function efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition, though it could arguably be more front-loaded with the purpose.

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 annotations or output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is minimal. It fails to mention the return value or behavior, which is critical for a detection tool. The lack of usage context and alternatives makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke.

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 input schema covers the single parameter sample_window with a description ('Number of past telemetry frames to evaluate'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Runs density-based anomaly detector' and identifies the resource as 'telemetry features out of distribution.' This makes the purpose clear and distinct from generic telemetry evaluation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_telemetry or isolate_fault_component. The context implies it is for anomaly detection, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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