fossa_get_vulnerability_remediation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it discloses the tool's output structure: 'Returns a partial fix and a complete fix, each with the semver distance — MAJOR, MINOR, or PATCH.' This adds context about the return format and the tool's judgment support, going beyond mere annotation repetition.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant filler or unnecessary details.

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 presence of annotations (read-only, open-world) and an output schema, the description still covers essential context: the unique single-vulnerability scope, the nature of the return (partial/complete fix with semver distance), and how it differs from the sibling tool. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by framing the parameters: 'one dependency revision' (revision_id) and 'one vulnerability' (vuln_id). It implies the semantic mapping but doesn't explicitly name or format the parameters. Since the baseline for 0 coverage is 4, the description provides enough contextual hint, though not exhaustive.

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: 'Ask which version of one dependency revision fixes one vulnerability, and how far away that version is.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'fossa_get_revision_remediation_guidance' by describing it as the 'single-vulnerability answer.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'This is the single-vulnerability answer; fossa_get_revision_remediation_guidance returns the whole report for a project revision instead.' This names the alternative and clarifies the scope, enabling proper tool selection.

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