fossa_export_project_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms 'Read-only'. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the export is grouped by issue type, CSV is returned as raw text under data.content, and default-branch fallback behavior. This enriches the agent's understanding of what happens during 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence carries meaningful information. No filler or repetition of schema details. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to list return fields. It covers the core behavior (whole-project export), key alternatives, default revision selection, and CSV-specific details. Slight gap: does not explain status or ref_type semantics, but schema enums mitigate this.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates somewhat by explaining that omitting revision_id or ref exports the latest revision on the default branch. However, it does not elaborate on project_locator, status, or ref_type, leaving those to schema titles/defaults. The mention of CSV format and data.content adds semantic value not in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool exports every issue on a project revision as JSON or CSV, with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from sibling fossa_list_issues, making the scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says to use fossa_list_issues instead when filtered, paged issues are needed rather than a whole-project report. Also explains default behavior when revision_id or ref are omitted, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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