fossa_create_public_attribution_report

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that the operation is a write, requires a specific environment variable, produces a publicly accessible URL with no login, publishes selected report contents (including potential security-sensitive open vulnerabilities), requires Premium, and that FOSSA returns 202 with a background task. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not fully convey.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a critical warning, a security implication, a prerequisite, and an async behavior note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the most important contextual aspects: write operation, environment requirement, public exposure, subscription requirement, and background task behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. It lacks a full parameter breakdown, but given the self-descriptive parameter names and the high-level mention of content options, this is reasonably complete for a well-annotated complex tool.

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 only mentions high-level content categories ('dependency inventory, licenses, and optionally open vulnerabilities'). It does not clarify the meaning of the many include/exclude flags, the locator parameters, or the recipient_email field. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions across 17 parameters.

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: 'Create a publicly reachable link to a revision's attribution report.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like render, email, or get attribution reports by emphasizing the public URL aspect.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it writes to FOSSA, requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and requires a Premium subscription. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, the write-vs-read distinction is implied, giving the agent a solid sense of prerequisites and suitability.

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