fossa_get_release_group_attribution_report

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the report is 'streamed back rather than queued,' the portal publishing switch is deliberately not exposed, and PDF is unavailable due to text decoding. It also explains the effect of exclude_package_labels, giving the agent important operational knowledge.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: synchronous generation, read-only nature, streaming behavior, publishing exclusion with an explicit alternative, PDF limitation, and one key parameter explanation. There is no 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's complexity (22 parameters, output schema present, annotations present), the description covers the main decision points: synchronous vs. queued, read-only, publishing excluded, PDF unavailable, and one parameter's filtering semantics. The output schema and readOnlyHint cover return shape and safety, but many parameters remain semantically unexplained, so it is not a 5.

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 must compensate for 22 parameters. Only exclude_package_labels is semantically explained ('drops every dependency carrying any of the named package labels'). The remaining parameters—such as format, preview, dependency_info_options, and the many include_* flags—are left to their names/enums without additional meaning, which is insufficient for a low-coverage 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate and return an attribution or SBOM report for one release in a FOSSA release group, synchronously.' It clearly scopes the tool to a single release within a release group and distinguishes it from the queued sibling by explicitly naming fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report for the publish/write path.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: publishing is a write, so users should use fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report instead, and PDF is not offered because the response is decoded as text. It also frames this tool as the synchronous, read-only option, which is clear practical guidance for selection.

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