fossa_get_fossabot_upgrade_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a clear 'Read-only' statement. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the fact that failed creation jobs are only reportable by their job_id, and that project_locator is only needed for multi-project issues.

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 purpose, and the second paragraph provides essential parameter guidance and safety information. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key behavioral nuances (read-only nature, optional parameter conditions, failure reporting) and is sufficiently complete for a status-checking tool with three parameters.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It effectively explains job_id (for failed creation attempts) and project_locator (only for issues affecting multiple projects). The remaining issue_id is obvious from the name and context, and its role is implied by 'for one issue'.

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 identifies the tool's function: showing the state of a fossabot dependency-upgrade PR for a specific issue, including creation progress, analysis progress, and the PR link. The verb 'Show' plus the resource and scope ('for one issue') distinguishes it from sibling tools like list or create.

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 useful context on when to use the tool (read-only status check) and explains when the optional parameters project_locator and job_id are relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, stopping just short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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