fossa_get_issue_affected_projects

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the result includes: projects, revisions, branch, and ticket status. This goes beyond the annotation safety flags and informs the agent about the output's informational value without contradicting 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 compact and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating the action, a one-word read-only note, and a third sentence elaborating on the blast-radius context. 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 tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the category parameter (licensing, vulnerability, quality) or scope_type (global/project), nor the effect of project_locator and revision_locator. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but parameter semantics remain critically undocumented.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters to help the agent fill them correctly. It does not mention issue_id, category, scope_type, project_locator, or revision_locator at all. The phrase 'on which branch' hints at revision_locator but never names it. This is a significant gap for a 5-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 'List the projects and revisions affected by one issue' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by calling it the 'blast-radius view of a single CVE or policy conflict', adding precise scope that sets it apart from other issue-related tools.

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 context by explaining this is used to see the blast radius of a single CVE or policy conflict, including which projects carry it on which branch and whether a ticket is filed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among the many issue tools.

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