fossa_binary_revision_detail

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

Despite readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is read-only (redundant but reinforcing), describes what each view returns (strings with hit counts, component files), and discloses the page_size cap of 50. This goes well beyond the annotation metadata and provides actionable knowledge for the agent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and then detailing the two modes. Every sentence contributes value, with no repetition or filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 an output schema is present (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the key contextual aspects: the two available views, their required parameters, and pagination restrictions. It could be more complete by explaining the revision_locator parameter and explicitly stating that only one of component_id/dependency_locator should be provided depending on view, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the role of view ('component_matches' vs 'dependency_components'), the required parameter for each (component_id, dependency_locator), and the page_size cap. However, it does not clarify revision_locator, page, or the interplay between them, leaving some parameters still ambiguous to a new agent.

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's purpose: 'Drill into one binary decomposition revision' and distinguishes the two sub-modes ('component_matches' vs 'dependency_components'). It uses a specific verb ('drill into') and identifies the resource ('binary decomposition revision'), setting it apart from sibling tools like fossa_binary_components or fossa_binary_dependency_confidence.

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 gives clear context for when to use each view: component_matches needs component_id and returns match strings; dependency_components needs dependency_locator and returns component files. It also notes pagination constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just 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.