fossa_list_dependencies

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds only that it lists 'detected' dependencies, which implies a read operation. It does not disclose pagination, filter behavior, or any caveats, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose ('List dependencies') and is not verbose, though it could have included a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 high complexity (21 parameters, many filters) and 0% schema coverage, this description is far too sparse. It does not mention the required revision_locator parameter, the variety of filters, or any guidance on what the response contains (though an output schema exists). It is adequate only as a minimal summary, not as a complete tool explanation.

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%, and with 21 parameters the description must compensate. It merely says 'with filters' without explaining any of the many filter parameters (e.g., licenses, depths, has_issues). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field names, which are also mostly self-explanatory but not elaborated.

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 lists dependencies for a specific project revision, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from general project listing tools like fossa_list_projects, but a sibling tool named fossa_list_revision_dependencies_v1 exists whose purpose is not differentiated here.

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 phrase 'with filters useful for licensing/security investigation' implies the tool is appropriate for those contexts, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like fossa_get_dependency or fossa_list_revision_dependencies_v1, nor any exclusions.

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