fossa_list_report_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description repeats 'Read-only' and adds conceptual context about what a report option is. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as pagination, response size limits, or whether it returns all presets at once. The added definition is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already imply.

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 three short sentences: purpose, read-only note, and definition of a report option. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists). The description defines the domain concept ('report option') and scope. While it doesn't describe the return format, the output schema presumably covers that. For a low-complexity tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could explicitly mention that it returns the saved presets in a list.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds context by stating 'for this organization', which clarifies the implicit scope. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides some useful context beyond the schema.

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 the saved report option presets for this organization' — a specific verb ('List') and resource ('report option presets'). It further defines what a report option is (a named bundle of attribution-report switches), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like fossa_save_report_option or fossa_delete_report_option.

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 implies this is for retrieving saved presets, and the read-only annotation reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar list tools or mention any alternatives/exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to get all report options before modifying them.' Thus usage guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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