fcop_create_alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('Creates a new ALERT-*.md file in fcop/alerts/'), the required role (ADMIN/Governance Observer), and implies a non-destructive write operation. Adding details about persistence or side effects would raise the score further.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a preliminary role note. It front-loades critical authorization info, uses bold for emphasis, and every sentence adds value. No waste.

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 an output schema (not elaborated in description, but per rules not required) and the description covers purpose, usage context, and output format, it is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., severity values, alert_type enum, summary format). Therefore, per calibration, baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('manually file a governance alert') and the resource ('governance alert'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it is for gaps not captured by automated scanning, making its purpose unique and specific.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('when you detect a governance gap that automated scanning has not yet captured') and the required role (ADMIN or Governance Observer). It does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for a well-informed agent.

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