Detect Kpi Anomalies

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find anomalies' without indicating read-only status, side effects, or output characteristics. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the agent is left without behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise and easily parsed, though it lacks substance. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, not bloated.

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 tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use method or threshold, what anomalies signify, or any operational context. The agent would need to infer or seek additional information to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It implicitly hints at 'domain' via 'domain's KPI history', but it does not explain 'method' or 'threshold' at all. The defaults (zscore, 2.5) are in the schema but their meaning is unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.

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 states a specific action (find anomalies) and a specific resource (a domain's KPI history). It is clear and distinct from siblings like forecast_metric or query_kpis, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is understandable, but 'anomalies' is not elaborated, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions for selection.

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