detect_anomalies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose but does not mention output format, side effects (e.g., read-only), required permissions, or whether it consumes significant resources. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess safety and behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be longer to cover parameters and usage without becoming verbose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how parameters affect behavior. Sibling differentiation is minimal. The description fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters: 'metrics', 'baseline_period', or 'sensitivity'. The agent is left to infer meaning from names and defaults, which is inadequate for a statistical detection tool. The description adds no value over the raw schema.

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 'Find statistically unusual patterns' clearly states the action (find) and the resource (statistically unusual patterns). It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_recurring_patterns' which focuses on recurring patterns, not anomalies. However, it lacks specificity on the type of anomalies, so scores 4 instead of 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'monitor_kpi_thresholds' or 'explain_anomaly'. The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases or mention conditions where this tool is preferable.

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