fcop_list_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes that alerts are created automatically by fcop_check(), the file format (ALERT-*.md), and severity levels. It does not mention authentication needs or rate limits, but as a read-only list tool, this is acceptable.

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 two short paragraphs that front-load the purpose and then add context. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. Could be slightly more streamlined but is effective.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (list with optional filters), the description is complete. It explains the source, structure, and use case, and the schema covers parameters thoroughly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds little beyond the schema, noting that filters are available but not providing extra semantics. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it lists governance alerts from fcop/alerts/, explaining the structure and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fcop_check and fcop_create_alert by positioning itself as the admin's 'red dot' for surfacing gaps, making the purpose very 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 tells when to use it (to see governance gaps without manual log patrols) and implies admin use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like fcop_audit or fcop_check, leaving some ambiguity.

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