fossa_get_attribution_report

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, so the description's added value is limited to 'text-friendly' format. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover the key safety profile.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's core 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?

Despite having rich annotations and a full output schema, the tool is complex (15 parameters) and the description is sparse. The schema provides parameter titles and enums, and the output schema covers returns, but the description lacks usage guidance and parameter explanations, making it only partially complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 by explaining any of the 15 parameters. While parameter names like 'format' and 'include_*' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no context about format values, revision_locator syntax, or the meaning of the boolean flags.

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 retrieves a FOSSA attribution/SBOM report for a revision, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('attribution/SBOM report'). It distinguishes from siblings like fossa_get_revision_attribution_json by emphasizing 'text-friendly' format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fossa_get_revision_attribution_json or fossa_get_revision_sbom. It lacks any when/when-not context or exclusions.

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