fossa_get_revision_remediation_guidance

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the Premium subscription requirement with 403 behavior, and why PDF/zip outputs are not requested (they don't survive as text). These details help the agent anticipate errors and understand the tool's limitations.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add essential context (report content, prerequisite, output limitation). Every sentence earned its place with no 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?

With annotations, an output schema, and a clear high-level description, the tool is fairly complete. It explains the report's purpose and prerequisites. The main gap is lack of parameter explanation, but given the self-titled schema properties and defaults, the description suffices for an agent to decide on invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. It doesn't clarify what project_locator or revision_locator mean, nor the effect of boolean flags like exclude_quick_wins. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Return FOSSA's remediation guidance report for a revision' and explains the report content ('ranked fix plan: quick wins, high and low priority work, and outdated dependencies'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_vulnerability_remediation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including a prerequisite ('Requires a Premium subscription with Security enabled') and a when-not-to-use condition ('other organizations get a 403'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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