fossa_list_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds valuable context: the tool returns organization-wide package usage counts and blocked-version counts, and that filters can answer cross-project vulnerability questions without traversing all projects. This goes beyond mere annotation replication.

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: the first sentence gives the core purpose, the second clarifies scope and names an alternative, and the third provides a use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 explains when to use the tool and what it returns, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, the large parameter surface (17 parameters) is barely addressed, with only one illustrative filter, so an agent may not know how to use other filters effectively. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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, but it barely does. It only mentions 'filters' generically and gives one example (a CVE filter). None of the 17 parameters (cve, severities, block_types, fetchers, etc.) are individually explained, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names and enums 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the third-party packages the organization depends on, with how many projects use each one and how many of its versions are blocked.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('third-party packages'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fossa_list_dependencies by highlighting it as the organization-wide view.

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 differentiates when to use this tool vs. fossa_list_dependencies: 'This is the organization-wide package view, not a per-project dependency list: use fossa_list_dependencies for one revision's tree.' It also provides a concrete use case ('who still ships a package with this CVE'), making adoption straightforward.

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