fossa_get_oidc_provider

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

The description adds a crucial non-obvious API behavior not covered by the annotations: FOSSA returns 401 instead of 404 for non-existent, hidden, or unauthorized providers, clarifying that 'unauthorized' does not necessarily mean invalid credentials. The read-only statement redundantly echoes the annotation but does not contradict it, and the error behavior is valuable context for an agent.

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 highly concise with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph delivers essential behavioral context. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the read-only nature, and a critical error-handling subtlety. No significant gaps remain for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, and the description does not explicitly explain the provider_id parameter or how to obtain it. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description's only indirect reference—"Show one OIDC provider"—provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: "Show one OIDC provider" and enumerates the exact data returned (issuer URL, scope, creation time). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_oidc_providers (listing multiple) and create/delete (mutations), making the 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 implies usage when a single OIDC provider's details are needed but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives such as list_oidc_providers, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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