Get Governance Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral source. It clearly implies a read-only aggregation operation ("Return aggregate statistics"), but it doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects or that it's safe to call frequently. It also doesn't disclose any performance or rate implications. Given the read-only nature is fairly obvious from "get/summary", this is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and output; the second adds the usage context and interpretation. The critical value-add (reconciliation with Tasks/Reviews) is front-loaded.

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 there is an output schema (not shown but declared), the description doesn't need to detail return formats. It covers what the tool returns, how to interpret it, and the action it implies. No prerequisites, parameters, or edge cases are needed. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). With no parameters, the description needs to explain nothing about them. Baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, which 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 what the tool does: it returns aggregate statistics from the governance event log, specifying the three exact outputs (calls by risk level, most active tools, CRITICAL_TAG events). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_governance_events (which lists individual events) and fcop_check/fcop_audit (which probably run checks or audits).

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 "Use as a quick health check" and explains how to interpret the results (CRITICAL_TAG events without coverage are governance gaps requiring ADMIN attention). It gives a clear when-to-use, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Still, the guidance is strong.

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