detect_collusion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Detect' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The return format, operational scope, or resource implications are completely absent. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and examples. It is concise without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but overall well-sized.

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?

The tool has no input parameters and no output schema. The description only lists collusion patterns but does not describe the output format, how to interpret results, or any constraints. For a tool that likely returns detection results, this is incomplete. With no annotations, more context is needed.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage (no missing descriptions). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by not requiring additional param info.

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 verb 'Detect' and the resource 'agent-to-agent collusion patterns', listing examples like 'recon-then-exploit, coordinated exfil, token sharing'. It is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like 'scan_security' or 'run_incident_playbook', which may have overlapping 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or explicit 'when-not-to-use'. The description solely states functionality without usage direction.

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