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 discloses that alerts are automatically written by fcop_check(), that each alert is a structured file (ALERT-*.md) with severity, type, and summary, which gives useful behavioral context. It does not mention any side effects (likely none since it's a read operation), but it does explain the origin and format of the data, which goes beyond just saying 'list alerts.' This is adequate given the tool is read-only in nature, though it could mention that it does not modify anything.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a bold, attention-grabbing headline ('ADMIN Governance Alert Inbox'), then states the core function, explains the origin of alerts, and ends with practical usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose: it identifies the tool, its data source, and its use case. No redundancy, and the front-loading 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?

For a simple list/filter tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, data source, file format, and usage scenario. It also implicitly explains the return value (a list of alerts with severity and type). There is no missing information that an agent would need to invoke it correctly, given the schema covers parameters and the output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each parameter does in context: for example, 'last_n' as a maximum count, and status/severity as filters. It does not repeat the schema descriptions verbatim; instead, it provides a summary of what the parameters achieve (e.g., filtering by severity and status), which is helpful for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities. It slightly exceeds the baseline by clarifying the semantic intent.

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 identifies what the tool does: it lists governance alerts from the fcop/alerts/ directory. It states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('governance alerts'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fcop_check (which detects drift) and fcop_audit (which performs audits). The phrase 'ADMIN's red dot' immediately signals its role, making it unmistakable among the many fcop siblings.

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 implies when to use it: 'run this to see what governance gaps the system has surfaced, without needing to manually patrol logs.' This gives clear context and contrasts with manual patrolling, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, it is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for viewing alerts rather than creating them (fcop_create_alert).

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