fossa_export_issue_overview

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

The description significantly augments the annotations. It explicitly states the write requirement, clarifies that it does not modify issues but creates a background job and delivers a report, and discloses that the server cannot poll the job status. This goes well beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) provide.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second warns about write requirements, and the third explains side effects and return token. Every sentence adds essential information with no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and return token clearly. However, it lacks any explanation of the six optional parameters, which is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions and the description offers no hints about their semantic meaning. The output schema exists, so return details are partially covered by the schema, but parameter ambiguity remains a notable shortfall.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain any of them. The parameters are entirely opaque; the agent only knows names and types, not their meaning or how they relate to filtering the issues behind Issue Overview counts. Description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Queue') and a specific resource ('an export of the issues behind the Issue Overview counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like fossa_export_project_issues or fossa_export_global_issues_csv by tying it to Issue Overview outputs.

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: it is for exporting issues behind Issue Overview counts, requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and is a POST-like gated operation. While it doesn't name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the contextual details (gating, no polling endpoint) give practical guidance on when to use this tool.

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