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 behavioral burden. It states 'Read' and refers to an 'append-only' log, which strongly implies a non-mutating, read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare the absence of side effects, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds context (ADR-0030-bis Layer 1) and clarifies output content, but lacks explicit safety disclosures beyond the implication of 'read'.

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—two sentences plus a bolded lead-in. It front-loads the core purpose ('FCoP governance audit') and then efficiently explains use and output. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details need not be repeated. The description fully explains what the tool does, why to use it, and what it returns (recent events with risk classification). All three parameters are optional and well-documented in the schema, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination semantics are covered by last_n and the output schema.

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%, as each parameter (tag, risk, last_n) has its own detailed description. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema handles parameter meaning completely, a score of 3 is appropriate per the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool reads an append-only governance event log and returns recent tool-call intercept events. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('governance event log'), and mentions the middleware and ADR reference, which distinguishes it from generic audit tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like fcop_audit or fcop_check, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It provides a clear context for use ('Use this to understand what actions agents have taken and their risk classification'), which tells an agent when to apply it. But it does not mention when not to use this tool or direct to any alternative sibling tools, so the agent must infer that other audit tools might serve different purposes without explicit guidance.

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