fossa_list_fossabot_upgrade_prs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description confirms 'Read-only' and adds extensive behavioral details: cursor-paginated walking forward/backward with non-mixable directions, cursor source from pageInfo, include_counts behavior, and the edge case of non-connected repos reading as empty. This far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 andfront-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the opening states what it does, the middle covers pagination and counts, and the final addresses a potential error condition. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavioral scope for a list operation: it identifies the resource, explains pagination mechanics, the optional counts parameter, and a non-obvious edge case. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the tricky pagination parameters (first/after, last/before, cannot mix), the include_counts flag, and cursor provenance. It does not explicitly describe sort, state, search, or project_locator, but those are relatively self-explanatory enums/strings. The added semantics for the less obvious parameters merit a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the dependency-upgrade pull requests fossabot has opened against a project's repository.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_fossabot_upgrade_pr (singular) and fossa_request_fossabot_upgrade_pr (create).

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 on when to use the tool (listing fossabot PRs) and explicitly states it is read-only. It also explains pagination behavior and the empty-result case for non-connected repos, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it misses a higher score.

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