fossa_list_package_label_assignments

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 behavioral context by explaining the default org-wide behavior, the effect of the two include flags, and the significance of the assignment `id` for unassignment. No contradiction is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first sentence, followed by read-only status, default behavior, and key parameter effects. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

With 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation needs: what the tool does, when it returns all data, how include flags affect results, and how the response maps to another tool. It lacks pagination/limit details, but the output schema fills structural gaps, making the overall guidance sufficient.

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 explicitly explains the two boolean include parameters and implies scope/package filtering, but does not describe the meaning or interaction of scope, scope_id, package_id, and package_version. This is partial compensation, leaving some parameter semantics to the schema defaults and names.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List which package labels are assigned to which packages.' This precisely distinguishes the tool from sibling label tools (e.g., fossa_list_package_labels, fossa_assign_package_labels) by focusing on the assignment relationship.

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 gives clear context: it is read-only, all filters are optional, and no filters returns all assignments in the organization. It also notes that the returned `id` is used by fossa_unassign_package_labels, implying a usage connection. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative label-listing tools or name when not to use it, so it misses an explicit exclusion.

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