fossa_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds a meaningful prerequisite: the project_locator must come from another tool, which affects invocation expectations. This is beyond the annotations and provides useful context.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an essential usage note. No wasted words.

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 single-project read operation with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers the scenario. It might benefit from noting the optional ref/ref_type parameters for revisions, but they are not central to the tool's primary use. The 'do not guess locator' guidance is a key completeness element.

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. It explains the key parameter project_locator as an exact FOSSA locator not to be guessed, offering significant value. The optional ref and ref_type are not described but are self-explanatory with enums and defaults.

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 'Get detailed metadata about exactly one FOSSA project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fossa_list_projects by emphasizing 'exactly one' and 'detailed metadata.'

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 critical usage guidance: use the exact locator from another FOSSA MCP tool and do not guess from a repository name. This implies when to use (when a locator is already obtained) and sets an exclusion (don't use repo name), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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