list_governance_events

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 states the tool 'reads' the log and returns events, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not detail permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, but the basic behavioral trait is clear.

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: a bold header and two short sentences. Every word adds value, and key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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?

Despite lacking annotations, the description clearly explains the tool's purpose and output (risk classification). The existence of an output schema likely compensates for any missing details about return values. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the tool is safe/read-only, but it is strongly implied.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions and defaults (schema coverage 100%). The description offers no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 'Read the append-only governance event log' and explains it returns 'recent tool-call intercept events' with risk classification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcop_audit or fcop_check, which have different purposes.

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 says 'Use this to understand what actions agents have taken and their risk classification,' providing a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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