fossa_get_security_policy

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description adds value beyond that by explaining the overlay semantics—'the overlay can only make enforcement stricter, never looser.' This is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and constraints.

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 output schema exists, the return values are covered. The description clearly explains what the tool returns and its behavioral guarantees. However, it omits details about the project_locator parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. The tool is relatively simple, but the parameter gap prevents full completeness.

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 input schema has one required parameter, project_locator, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the format or semantics of project_locator, so the agent would have to guess how to construct this identifier. No compensation for the low schema coverage.

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's function: to show the security policy in force for a project, including the configured base policy and any local overlay. This is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like evaluate_security_policy or enable_security_policy.

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 implies usage for read-only viewing via the verb 'show' and the explicit 'Read-only' statement. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as fossa_evaluate_security_policy, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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