fossa_evaluate_security_policy

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only and open-world hints, the description adds significant context: it explicitly states the tool does not apply anything to FOSSA and that a FOSSA-raised vulnerability always blocks and cannot be cleared by a local exception. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies important behavior.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence captures the core function, and the second adds essential read-only and exception details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covers return values and safety, but the description lacks parameter semantics due to 0% schema coverage. The main caveats are given, yet the agent might not know how to properly populate 'count' and 'depths' or interpret the locators, leaving the description incomplete for a tool with four parameters.

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 compensate for it. While 'revision_locator' is hinted by the word 'revision', the required 'project_locator' and optional 'count' and 'depths' are not explained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers no addition guidance beyond what the schema's titles provide.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool evaluates every dependency in a revision against the effective security policy and returns an allow/warn/block verdict per package. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_security_policy (which likely just retrieves policy) or fossa_enable_security_policy.

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 by stating the tool reports what the policy says and does not apply anything to FOSSA, implying it is for read-only evaluation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use X to modify the policy'), so it slightly misses full guidance.

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