Fcop Create Alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the side effect (creates a new ALERT-*.md file), the target location (fcop/alerts/), and an access restriction (ADMIN / Governance Observer only). It does not mention permissions enforcement, overwrite behavior, or failure modes, but for a simple create-file operation the core behavior is clear.

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 short, front-loaded with the access restriction and core action, and avoids repeating schema details. Every sentence contributes either a usage condition or an output effect.

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?

Together with the schema, the description tells the agent who is authorized, when to use it, what file will be created, and where. It lacks details on idempotency/overwrite behavior or post-creation effects, but this is a minor gap for such a simple creation 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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including allowed enum values for severity and alert_type. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a precise action: 'Manually file a governance alert', and names the concrete artifact it creates: 'a new ALERT-*.md file in fcop/alerts/'. It also restricts use to ADMIN or Governance Observer, which disambiguates its role from other tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('when you ... detect a governance gap that automated scanning has not yet captured') and who is allowed to use it. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the condition for use is clear enough to route an agent.

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