detect_anomalies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The verb 'list' implies read-only but it is not explicit, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately adds clarifying parameters and examples. Every element earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and scope. It does not explicitly address integration with siblings or pagination, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format. Overall, it is adequately complete for its complexity.

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. It does so by explaining that the optional vehicle_id parameter, if provided, scopes the anomaly listing to a single vehicle; otherwise, it returns fleet-wide anomalies. This clarifies the default behavior (null) and adds meaning beyond the bare schema declaration.

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 lists rule-based anomalies, enumerates specific types (overheating, low battery, fault codes, harsh driving), and specifies the scope as fleet-wide or single-vehicle via an optional parameter. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique focus on anomalies.

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 implies usage for anomaly detection but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like fleet_health_summary or get_vehicle_telemetry. It does not mention when not to use it or name any sibling. The usage context is implied by the purpose, but there is no direct comparison or exclusionary statement.

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