fossa_list_oidc_trust_relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: explains the security significance ('standing grant'), the meaning of requiredClaims, and explicitly states 'No credential is returned.' This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the action, followed by two short paragraphs offering security context. Every sentence adds meaningful value with no 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?

For a list operation with an output schema, the description covers the tool's semantics and security implications thoroughly. It does not explain parameter behavior, but that is minor given the clarity of the tool's purpose and the presence of an output schema.

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%, yet the description does not mention any of the four parameters (prev, user_id, page_size, provider_id). It heavily relies on the reader to infer parameter meanings from names alone, and offers no guidance on filtering or pagination.

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 'List the OIDC trust relationships configured for this organization,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It also distinguishes from related siblings like fossa_get_oidc_trust_relationship by using 'list' and clarifying this is a collection-level read.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'This is the tool to read when auditing what can authenticate without a password.' This gives clear context, though it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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