fossa_get_dependency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context by specifying the need for an exact locator, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response formats, pagination, or any potential side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second giving a specific usage hint. There is no redundant info or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are presumably covered there. However, the description omits any explanation of the revision_locator parameter and the optional include flags. For a tool with 7 parameters, this brevity is acceptable for the essential flow but leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is a moderate gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains the dependency_revision_locator by advising to use the exact locator from fossa_list_dependencies. The other required parameter, revision_locator, is not mentioned, and the numerous boolean include_* options are only self-explanatory through their names. This incomplete compensation leaves significant gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 single dependency's richer detail record for a specific revision. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is well-defined ('richer detail record for one dependency in one revision'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like fossa_list_dependencies, which lists dependencies rather than fetching a single detailed record.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Use the exact dependency revision locator returned by fossa_list_dependencies'. This tells the agent to obtain the locator from a specific sibling tool, establishing a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it loses a point for not offering broader guidance.

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