fossa_get_builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reiterates 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by explaining the spec defect (both optional params) and the tool's behavior of refusing invalid calls before making a request, which is valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary and then provides necessary detail. The spec-defect explanation is somewhat lengthy but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious validation behavior. Overall, it is well-organized and no sentences are wasted.

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?

While the description covers the core one-of constraint and sort format, it omits any mention of pagination parameters (page, page_size) or date-range filters (start_date, end_date) that are part of the schema. Given the schema itself has no descriptions and annotations don't cover these, the tool description is incomplete for practical use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains locator, project_id, and sort in detail, but the remaining five parameters (page, page_size, view, start_date, end_date) are completely undocumented. With 8 parameters total, this is insufficient coverage.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'List FOSSA build records for a revision or project, or count them.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as the 'why has this revision not analyzed' view, which differentiates it from scan-listing 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to understand why a revision hasn't been analyzed, and explicitly states the 'exactly one of locator or project_id' requirement. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, falling short of a 5.

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