fossa_build_component

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'WRITES TO FOSSA. Requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true.' It also discloses side effects (creates project/revision, assigns policy/team/labels/release group, queues analysis) and explains force_rebuild behavior. This goes beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the main action and then delivers supporting detail in a logical order: write requirement, side effects, prerequisite workflow, and limitations. Each sentence contributes meaning without redundancy, though it is a bit dense.

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?

For a tool with 19 parameters, no schema parameter descriptions, and no examples of asynchronous behavior, the description provides the key workflow and restrictions but leaves gaps. The output schema covers return value, but many parameters and the exact meaning of 'component' and 'revision' remain implicit. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain required parameters like package_spec or revision. It adds meaning for a few optional parameters (policy, team, labels, release_group, force_rebuild) but 19 parameters remain largely undocumented. Given the low coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 centers on a specific verb+resource: 'Start an asynchronous build of a component that was already uploaded to a signed URL.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the upload flow by stating 'this tool only starts the build' and referencing fossa_get_component_upload_url as a prerequisite, which differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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 gives concrete workflow guidance: 'Get the upload URL from fossa_get_component_upload_url first and PUT the file to it; this tool only starts the build.' It also notes an organizational constraint ('Non-premium organizations may only import SBOMs'). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use statements, but the workflow context is clear.

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