Fcop Audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output artifact path (fcop/shared/INSPECTION-{date}-{NNN}-{scope}.md) and the report's Execution Block contents, including remediation commands, owner, tier priority, and rollback. It does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies project files, though the scan-and-report framing implies it is primarily read-only aside from writing the report.

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 well-organized with headers, lists, and front-loaded purpose. The fcop_check contrast comes early, the scope list is compact, and the output/report details are clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place without 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 tool with 3 optional parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the alternative tool, the scope semantics, the generated artifact path, and the report structure. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 adds real semantic value by explaining what each scope means (e.g., takeover = first-time fcop introduction with full compliance scan and 6 blind spots), which goes beyond the bare enum values in the schema. The output parameter semantics are left to the schema, but they are already well-documented there.

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 a specific verb and resource: it scans a project for protocol compliance gaps and produces an 'inspection-as-remediation' report. It also explicitly contrasts itself with fcop_check, making it unmistakable which tool to use for deep audits versus routine checks.

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 explicitly names fcop_check as the lightweight daily alternative and positions fcop_audit as the one-time deep inspection. The four scopes (new, upgrade, takeover, auto) further specify the exact usage situations, including the recommendation to use auto.

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