fossa_get_revision_notice_files

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: the truncation cap (FOSSA_REPORT_MAX_CHARS) and the `contents_truncated` flag on cut files. This goes beyond the basic safety profile and helps the agent interpret results.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter tip and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, a key parameter behavior, and a notable output trait. Output schema exists for return structure, so that is covered. It does not detail how to construct locators, but that may be assumed from context; overall it is sufficient for a read-only tool.

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. It explains the effect of include_contents=False and the truncation flag. However, it leaves project_locator and revision_locator unexplained, relying on naming conventions. Partial compensation only.

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 'Return the NOTICE files FOSSA found in a revision's distributed source,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like SBOM or attribution retrieval.

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 provides a practical usage hint for the include_contents parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied by the tool's specific purpose.

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