fossa_org_limits

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only aspect. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the return fields ('usage', 'max', 'unlimited'), the default behavior ('Defaults to both'), and the failure scenario when creating a release group at the limit. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second covers safety, requirements, return shape, and use case. Every phrase earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with readOnly/openWorld hints and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the operation, the parameter meaning, the return payload shape, and a concrete use case. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explicitly naming the parameter values ('contributors and release groups') and explaining that the null default means both. This adds meaning beyond the bare enum in the schema, though it doesn't spell out array behavior in detail.

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: 'Read a FOSSA organization's plan limits and current usage for contributors and release groups.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling creation/update tools, especially by framing it as a pre-check for release group creation.

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 explicit context on when to use: 'Useful before creating a release group, which fails once the organization is at its limit.' It also notes the read-only nature and the requirement for FOSSA_ORG_ID. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls just 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.