fossa_list_revision_dependencies_v1

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that by saying 'Neither transport changes FOSSA state.' It adds valuable context about the transport behavior and the legacy response shape, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence gives the primary purpose; the rest add necessary distinctions and behavior. It is front-loaded 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 description covers the tool's purpose, its difference from the v2 alternative, and the transport edge case, which is the most non-obvious behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return structure is covered. It doesn't spell out every parameter, but the remaining ones are adequately self-describing, making this complete enough for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of `dependency_locators` and `transport` in context, but other parameters (limit, offset, include_ignored, include_hash_data, include_license_text) are not described. However, those are self-explanatory from their names and the schema provides defaults, so the description adds moderate value but not full compensation.

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 specific verb+resource: 'List a revision's dependencies in FOSSA's legacy v1 response shape.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the v2 alternative (fossa_list_dependencies) by naming the exact differences (dependency lock, full license objects, issue targets).

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 states 'fossa_list_dependencies is the better default; this exists for the fields the v2 response drops and for filtering by a locator list too long for a query string.' This gives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and even explains the transport workaround for long locator lists.

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