detections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add genuinely useful context by explaining that the direction field indicates offender versus victim and warns against hand-inverting conclusions. However, it does not describe output shape, pagination, rate limits, or side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core scope stated first. The subsequent warning about direction inversion earns its place because it prevents a likely misinterpretation of results.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage alternatives, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. The direction clarification is valuable but leaves major gaps around parameter semantics, result interpretation, and when to choose this tool over siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the six input parameters such as asn, prefix, start, end, anomalous_only, or detection_type. It mentions direction values, but direction is not even an input parameter in the schema, so it contributes little to parameter understanding.

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 that the tool returns 'platform findings for an ASN or prefix,' which identifies both the resource and the query subject. It also adds the distinct trait that direction is made explicit, but it does not use a concrete action verb like 'list' or 'get,' and it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond the direction emphasis.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as platform_baseline, origin_history, or events_sample. The scope 'for an ASN or prefix' implies some usage context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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