fossa_get_release_group_attribution_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description echoes 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral detail by enumerating possible status values (CREATED, ASSIGNED, RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, FAILED) and noting the appearance of a download URL upon success. This goes beyond the annotation's safety indication 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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence packs essential details about the parameter source and expected response statuses without any filler or repetition of schema information.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return structures. It covers the tool's core behavior: status checking, parameter provenance, possible statuses, and the download URL on success. This is complete for an agent to decide when to use the tool and interpret simple results.

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 only one parameter (task_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that task_id is the value returned by fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report. This gives the parameter meaningful context beyond its integer type, telling the agent exactly where to obtain it.

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 starts with 'Check whether a queued release group attribution report has finished,' which clearly specifies the verb (check), resource (release group attribution report status), and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report (which queues the report) and fossa_get_release_group_attribution_report (which retrieves the actual report).

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 explicitly states that `task_id` is the value returned by fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report, making the usage context clear: call this after queuing a report. It implies polling for status but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives once succeeded, though the notion of a download URL on success hints at a subsequent step.

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