fossa_list_issues

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read operation, and the description's 'Query' aligns. The description adds useful behavioral context about scope (global vs project revision) and comparison between revisions, but does not disclose pagination or return format. With good annotations, a 3 is suitable.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core action and quickly adds scope and comparison. Highly concise.

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 tool is complex (23 parameters, comparison mode), and while the output schema exists and annotations help, the description is too terse to guide effective use. It doesn't explain how revision scoping or comparison works, when to use project_locator vs revision_locator, or what the response structure entails beyond the schema. More guidance is needed.

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 the description only partially compensates. It implicitly covers the required 'category' parameter by listing licensing/vulnerability/quality, and hints at scope_type/project_locator via 'globally or for one project revision.' However, the other 20+ parameters such as severity, sort, status, and filters are unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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 'Query' and clearly identifies the resource as licensing, vulnerability, or quality issues. It also specifies the scope (global or one project revision) and the comparison capability, distinguishing it from single-issue tools like fossa_get_issue.

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 for when to use this tool: to query issues globally or per project revision, and to compare revisions. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so a 4 rather than 5.

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