fossa_get_issue_facets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description adds value by disclosing the conditional parameter constraints and the difference between count-based facets and distinct-value facets. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, with four sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add read-only status, usage direction, and parameter constraints. No fluff or irrelevant details are present, and the structure is logical.

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 complexity of 7 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the key parameter interactions, and the nature of results (counts vs distinct values). It does not explain every parameter, but the essential usage context is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly for `facet`, `category`, and `status`, explaining their interplay (e.g., 'category is required for the license-list, package-managers, and statuses facets and rejected by the others'). However, it remains silent on `team_ids`, `scope_type`, `project_locator`, and `revision_locator`, leaving their semantics potentially ambiguous.

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's purpose: to summarize the current issue set one dimension at a time with counts or distinct values for specific facets. It enumerates the possible facets and explicitly contrasts with fossa_list_issues, making it easily distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before fossa_list_issues to find out what is worth listing.' It further details when the `category` and `status` parameters are applicable or rejected, which constitutes clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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