fossa_list_revision_scans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: results are newest-first, and each entry includes licensing, security, and quality policy versions. This helps the agent interpret the returned data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and a second sentence that adds crucial interpretation guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and result interpretation. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior, but for a simple historical list tool this is a minor gap.

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%, and the description provides no explicit explanation of page, page_size, project_locator, or revision_locator beyond what the tool name suggests. For a tool with 4 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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 policy scans FOSSA has run against a revision, newest first,' which is a specific verb, resource, and ordering. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools about dependencies, SBOMs, or issues.

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 second paragraph explains a key use case: comparing policy versions to understand whether findings predate policy changes. It offers clear context for when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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