fossa_list_projects

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

The description mentions 'Read-only' (which aligns with annotations) and adds a unique behavioral detail about the locators filter being sent to a POST endpoint when too long. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful insight into how the tool handles large filters.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured in a short paragraph.

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 tool with an output schema and 14 optional parameters, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, when to use, read-only safety, and a notable edge-case behavior. It does not explain all parameters, but the schema's titles and enums help fill gaps. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only explains the sort parameter (licensing, security, quality, scan time, title) and the locators filter behavior. The other 12 parameters (e.g., page, count, types, labels) are not described, leaving the agent to infer from names/titles 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 opens with 'List FOSSA projects visible to the current account,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_project' by clearly indicating a list operation for all projects, and it adds 'organization-wide project inventory' for further clarity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this first when the user names a project informally or asks for an organization-wide project inventory.' This is clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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