fossa_binary_dependency_confidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format (a map of dependency locator to High, Medium, Low, or Unknown) and the conditional parameter requirements. 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 concise: three sentences with the purpose stated first, followed by essential usage details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, yet it still summarizes them. It covers the tool's purpose, the optional dependency locator filter, and the scope-specific parameter requirements. It is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could have briefly noted that this is specifically for binary dependency confidence as opposed to other dependency-related tools.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaning for dependency_locator (optional, acts as a filter), revision_locator (required for revision scope), and release_id (required for release scope). It does not define locator formats, but it clarifies the conditional relationships between scope and the other parameters, which the schema does not.

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 reports how confident FOSSA is that a matched binary component is the dependency it named. This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_binary_components or fossa_get_dependency.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: pass dependency_locator to query a single dependency instead of all, and explains that revision scope requires revision_locator while release scope requires release_id. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.

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