fcs_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses a key behavioral constraint: the report carries no aggregate score because 'prohibition 4 forbids one.' The 'status' framing implies a read-only report, and the enumeration of what is and is not included gives agents a good behavioral picture, though side effects, auth, and output format are not explicitly addressed.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core 'Consolidated ... status' concept before listing report sections. The final sentence adds a valuable caveat without padding. It could be slightly better structured for readability, but every element earns its place.

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 report tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a detailed inventory of the report's contents and an important exclusion (no aggregate score). Together with the parameter schema, this is sufficient for an agent to know what invoking fcs_report will produce, though it does not describe output format or usage alternatives.

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 for the single optional parameter useLiveBiomarkers is 100%, and the schema description already explains its meaning and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool is: a consolidated substrate-constrained functionalism status report, and enumerates its contents (four-level framework, core/belt partition, seventeen species–function pairs, conformance audit, prohibitions, revision order). The noun 'status' plus the tool name 'report' make the operation clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the specialized fcs_* siblings (e.g., fcs_taxonomy, fcs_conformance).

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 word 'Consolidated' implies this is the umbrella status report versus the more specialized sibling tools, and the caveat 'Carries no aggregate score of any kind' tells agents when not to expect an aggregate result. However, no sibling tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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