fossa_get_revision_sbom

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, already indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the redirect behavior for 'part=original' (returns a download URL, not the document) and the 400 error for non-SBOM projects. These go beyond annotations to set expectations accurately.

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 well-structured and concise, using paragraphs and code formatting to clarify the two modes. Every sentence adds useful information—purpose, behavior, and constraints—without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, the description does not need to detail return structures. It covers the key contextual aspects: what each 'part' returns, the redirect nuance, and the valid project types. The 400 error condition is an important edge case that is explicitly mentioned, making the description complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the 'part' parameter, including its default and the meaning of each enum value. It does not clarify 'project_locator' or 'revision_locator', but those are standard locator parameters self-evident from their names and required status. The explanation of 'part' provides significant semantic value.

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 the tool returns FOSSA's analysis of an uploaded SBOM or a link to the original file. It distinguishes between the two 'part' modes and specifies that it applies only to SBOM projects, differentiating it from sibling revision tools.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (for SBOM projects) and explicitly states that non-SBOM projects return a 400 error. It also explains the two 'part' choices. However, it does not mention specific alternative tools when one might use something else, so it falls short of full explicit alternatives.

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