fossa_binary_components

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

The description states 'Read-only,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond annotations by noting that `view="paths"` returns a directory tree one level at a time and is the only view accepting `path` and `search`. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the read-only note and scope parameter, and the view parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, avoids repetition, and has no filler.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple modes, output schema available), the description covers parameter dependencies, view semantics, and an important restriction (path/search only with paths view). The output schema is present, so return values need no further explanation. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters. It maps `scope` values to required parameters (revision_locator vs. release_group_id/release_id), clarifies `view` options (count vs. paths), and indicates that `path` and `search` are only valid with `view="paths"`. This is comprehensive given the schema's silence.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Count the binary decomposition components found in a revision or a release group release, or list them grouped by the file path they were found at.' It clearly distinguishes the two primary operations (count vs. list paths) and the target resources (revision or release).

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 explicit context for when to use the tool and how to choose parameters: 'scope selects what is being asked about' and describes the required locators for each scope. It also explains which view accepts `path` and `search`. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when an alternative would be preferable, so it falls short of a 5.

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