fossa_list_issue_revisions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds behavioral context about grouping by revision and the inclusion of per-revision counts, which is not present in annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the added context about the view's shape and purpose is valuable.

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 and front-loaded: first sentence states what the tool does, second confirms read-only, third provides the use-case and sibling comparison. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief for a tool with 20 parameters. It does not explain the required 'category' parameter or any key filtering options, and does not clarify the 'revision' concept or how grouping works. The purpose is clear, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 description contains zero parameter information while the schema has 20 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and usage of params like 'scope_type', 'change_status', and 'compare_to_revision' from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues grouped by dependency revision'), adds the per-revision counts, and explicitly distinguishes it from fossa_list_issues. It clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('which packages should we upgrade first' view) and names the alternative (fossa_list_issues for per-issue view). This provides clear context and a direct comparison, exceeding minimal guidance.

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