fossa_list_snippets

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral details: view-specific row shapes, the exception that every view except paths requires path, the lack of a count view in comparisons, and the exclude semantics of exVendored/exConverted in vendored_match. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, then paragraphs build from view shapes to comparison mode to filter semantics. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, multiple views, comparison mode), the description covers the central operational decisions and special constraints well. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The main shortfall is incomplete guidance on several secondary filters, but the core behavior is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for view, path, compare_to_revision, change_status, and vendored_match, which are not explained in the schema. However, with 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, many parameters remain unexplained—pagination, sort, search, package_ids, snippet_ids, package_labels, and rejection_status get no semantic clarification, leaving a significant gap.

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 and resource: 'List the code snippets FOSSA matched in a revision, or roll them up by package or by path.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from related tools like fossa_get_snippet or fossa_list_packages.

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 provides concrete usage context: it explains the read-only nature, the four view modes, the path requirement for all views except paths, and how to use compare_to_revision with change_status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.