fossa_compare_issue_summaries

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

The description adds 'Read-only' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, and clarifies that the tool returns counts/summaries, not the issues themselves. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not cover all behavior such as filtering capabilities or output structure. No contradiction 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence is useful: the purpose, the read-only safety note, and the pointer to the sibling tool. There is no redundancy or 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 high parameter count (12) and 0% schema description coverage, the description only covers the core use case of comparing two revisions and status counts. It does not mention the various available filters (severity, CWE, depth, etc.) or explain what the output contains beyond 'count'. While an output schema exists, the description alone is insufficient for full API comprehension.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. It only implicitly references 'two revisions' which maps to revision_locator and compare_to_revision, but leaves all optional filters (severity, cwes, search, etc.) undocumented. The description does not compensate for the low schema 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 opens with a specific action ('Count how many issues are new, remediated, or unchanged'), names the resource ('issues'), and scopes it ('between two revisions of one project'). It also differentiates this summary tool from the related fossa_list_issues by explicitly directing users to that sibling for actual issue details.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'answers what did this build change in one call'. It names the alternative tool (fossa_list_issues with compare_to_revision) and explains when to use that instead, making the choice between siblings explicit.

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