fossa_get_component_upload_url

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the URL expires in five minutes, the server cannot perform the upload, and the binary file type is billing-gated. This adds substantial context about side effects and limitations that annotations alone do not capture. 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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second paragraph elaborates on read-only nature, the required PUT action, the follow-up call, and a specific edge case. No wasteful words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and that an output schema exists, the description provides comprehensive context: workflow (get URL, PUT, then build), expiration, server limitations, and billing restrictions. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke and handle the tool correctly, leaving few unknown behaviors.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only partially compensates. It mentions component archive, SBOM, or binary, which maps to file_type enum values, and explains the billing gate for binary. However, it does not explain package_spec or revision, both required parameters. This is a gap, but the tool name and context provide some implicit meaning.

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 'Get a pre-signed URL for uploading a component archive, SBOM, or binary to FOSSA.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the follow-up tool fossa_build_component by explicitly saying 'Call fossa_build_component afterwards to start the analysis.' The purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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 usage context: it mints an upload URL, does not upload anything, and the URL must be PUT to by the caller. It explicitly instructs to call fossa_build_component afterwards, giving a workflow. It also notes a caveat: file_type="binary" is billing-gated and 403s when out of binary decompositions, which is a practical usage guideline.

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