fossa_email_revision_attribution

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool is write-gated despite being a GET, the side effect is an outbound email not a FOSSA state change, the response is the queued task rather than the report, and api_version="v1" invokes a legacy path. These details are not inferable from the annotations and are essential for correct invocation.

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 a tight paragraph with front-loaded purpose. All three supporting sentences add high-value behavioral context (write gate, side effect, response format, legacy path) without extraneous wording. It is appropriately sized for the 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 nails the core behavior and unusual side-effect/response semantics, which is essential for an agent to avoid misinterpreting the tool. However, with 18 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the lack of parameter clarification and the absence of explicit alternatives relative to sibling tools leave notable gaps. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but agent decision-making for parameter selection is under-supported.

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 adds meaning for one parameter (api_version). The other 17 parameters, including boolean flags like preview and include_* options, are left entirely to their names/defaults. With such a large parameter surface, the description should compensate by clarifying ambiguous parameters, but it 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Email a revision's attribution report to the account behind the API token." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that render, generate, or fetch attribution reports, and the recipient/action is unambiguous.

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 contextual usage: it emails an attribution report, requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and notes the legacy path for api_version="v1". It does not explicitly name alternatives like fossa_render_revision_attribution for downloading, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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