detect_error_anomalies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithmic approach (Z-score frequency analysis) but does not explain output format, how anomalies are reported, or any limitations. It also does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description only provides a high-level overview. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., flagged windows, anomalies), how to interpret results, or prerequisite requirements beyond the schema. This is incomplete for a complex analysis tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'time window' which maps to windowMinutes, but parameters like zScoreThreshold and lineStartPattern are not elaborated. The schema already documents all parameters clearly, so no additional value is provided.

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 function: 'Z-score frequency analysis to find sudden error spikes by time window.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (error spikes by time window), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_log_pattern or summarize_log_timeline by focusing on anomaly detection via statistical analysis.

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 detecting error spikes but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It names the scenario (sudden spikes) but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage inferred.

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