fcs_levels

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the return format looks like, whether pagination or ordering matters, or if any side effects or prerequisites exist. The description covers content but not call-time 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the framework name and immediately lists the four levels, followed by the specific attributes returned. Every phrase adds information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only reference tool without an output schema, the description adequately enumerates what the caller receives: formalism, epistemic status, complement reading, implementing ASTRA modules, and the remaining gap. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's domain, though it would benefit from noting that it returns a structured list or document.

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% for the single optional parameter, and the schema already documents the enum values and that omission returns all four levels. The description reinforces the level-specific nature of the content but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the tool's subject—a four-level framework—and enumerates the specific details it provides (formalism, epistemic status, complement reading, ASTRA modules, gaps). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'describe', requiring inference that this is a read-only informational tool.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (fcs_taxonomy, fcs_report, fcs_stratify, fcs_compare). It does not state what differentiates fcs_levels from these alternatives or suggest conditions under which an agent should select it.

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