fossa_get_fossabot_status

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

The description notes 'Read-only', consistent with readOnlyHint annotation, and explains the effect of the optional project_locator parameter—checking a specific project's repository instead of the whole organization. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by safety and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple status tool with one optional parameter, annotations stating read-only, and an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter behavior, and safety. No significant gaps remain.

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 description explicitly explains the project_locator parameter's purpose and effect, compensating for the schema's lack of description (0% coverage). The schema only defines it as string|null with a default; the description adds meaningful semantics.

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 reports fossabot connection status and remaining analysis credits, using the specific verb 'Report' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from sibling fossabot tools that handle upgrade PRs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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: call without parameters for organization-wide status, or pass project_locator to scope to one project's repository. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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