flag_anomaly

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions being a stub and plans for future integration, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive/reversible. The forwarding action is stated but lacks necessary 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 concise (two sentences) but front-loads a capability number and version note, which may confuse agents. It lacks a clear structure like purpose, usage, and parameter hints.

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 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and is a stub, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema existing) or clarify the current limitations of the stub implementation.

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 provides no information about the parameters (trace_id, source, severity, detail, session_id). Without any parameter semantics in either schema or description, the agent has no guidance on what values to provide.

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 tool's purpose: forwarding anomaly observations into the audit envelope's runtime_anomaly_flag field. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_record_decision by focusing on anomaly flagging. However, the mention of 'stub' and future version adds ambiguity about current functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it should be used when an anomaly is detected, there is no exclusion criteria or comparison with siblings like record_tool_call or verify_chain_integrity.

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