fcop_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it detects initialization state, returns appropriate reports, includes versions block, and appends drift warning. It also notes that agents must not invoke redeploy. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only (but heavily implies it).

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-structured with bullet points and a note, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but the deprecation note could be integrated more concisely. Still, it maintains clarity.

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?

The description is comprehensive: covers two report types, versions block, drift warning, behavioral constraints, and deprecation history. With an output schema present, return values are documented externally, making this complete.

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% with one parameter 'lang' having a clear default and description. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states it is the 'first tool call of every new session' and a 'general project-status report', specifying it returns one of two reports (initialization or UNBOUND) plus a versions block and optional drift warning. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaced 'unbound_report'.

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 says it must be the first tool call of every new session. It also provides clear constraints: while UNBOUND, the agent must not read task bodies, write files, or claim a role. It warns against invoking 'redeploy_rules' directly. This is comprehensive guidance.

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