fossa_get_github_app_installation_url

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and openWorldHint:true, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: the URL is 'constant public GitHub App installation URL with no state, code, or nonce,' safe to show and reuse, and following it would only fetch an HTML page. This explains side effects and security posture far beyond the structured annotations. 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 structured into three short paragraphs, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the read-only and human-in-the-loop aspects plus error condition, and the third details the URL's safety and reusability. There is no fluff; every sentence adds essential information for an agent.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, error handling (404), the nature of the return value (a constant, safe, public URL), and explicit confirmation that the tool does not perform installation. The agent can confidently invoke and interpret the result without additional context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, adhering to the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. It could have noted 'takes no input' explicitly, but that would be redundant given the empty schema.

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 'Get the URL a FOSSA administrator opens to install the FOSSA GitHub App,' which clearly identifies the specific action (get), the resource (URL for GitHub App installation), and the audience. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on projects, revisions, issues, teams, etc., leaving no doubt about its unique purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: it clarifies the tool is read-only and 'installs nothing,' so the returned URL must be opened by a human with GitHub admin rights. It also explains that a 404 means the GitHub App is not configured, giving the agent diagnostic context. This goes beyond simple usage and covers when-not-to-expect-installation behavior.

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