fossa_export_package_index

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a critical side effect: it sends an email, though it is 'read-only with respect to FOSSA state.' It also transparently states the return value ('background task reference') and the lack of a polling endpoint. This provides valuable behavioral context that annotations alone would not 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 tightly written and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The second paragraph adds essential caveats (email side effect, return value, no polling, alternative) without bloat. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 core behavior (queue, email, read-only, return ref) is completely described, and the existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, the 14 filtering parameters are completely unaddressed, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to scope the export. The description hints at equivalence with list_packages but never states that the parameters act as filters, so the tool is not fully self-contained.

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?

With 14 optional parameters and schema description coverage of 0%, the description provides no guidance on how to populate or use these filters. No parameter is mentioned, and no reference is made to filtering behavior (e.g., 'parameters behave like fossa_list_packages'). The agent is left to guess the meaning of block_types, fix_types, locators, etc., making this a clear 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 opens with a specific action: 'Queue an export of the package index and have FOSSA email the download link.' This clearly identifies the resource (package index), the mechanism (email), and the asynchronous nature. It further distinguishes itself by pointing to fossa_list_packages for inline viewing, avoiding confusion with similar export/list tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use fossa_list_packages to see the same rows inline.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool (when an emailed link is acceptable) versus the alternative (when inline results are needed). The note that 'this server has no endpoint to poll it' additionally warns against expecting a follow-up, reinforcing the appropriate usage context.

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