fossa_org_settings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: each section is a separate FOSSA request (cost/performance), credentials come back obfuscated, and the tool requires FOSSA_ORG_ID. These are not inferable from annotations alone.

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 long but front-loaded with the purpose and reads naturally. The extensive list of sections is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but the grouping and explanations justify its length. No wasted sentences, but it could be tightened by referencing the enum for exact names.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers prerequisites, output behavior (obfuscation), request cost, and the full set of sections. An output schema exists, and since the description already addresses endpoint-specific behavior, no critical context is missing.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of the 'sections' parameter, categorizing the endpoint-derived section names (authentication, general, integrations-*, languages-*, projects-*). It adds semantic grouping over the flat enum in 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 'Read one or more sections of a FOSSA organization's settings', using a specific verb ('read') and a clear resource. It distinguishes the tool from write/update siblings like fossa_update_org_settings and fossa_delete_org_setting by explicitly stating it is read-only.

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 clear context: it is a read-only operation, requires FOSSA_ORG_ID, and warns that each section is a separate request so the agent should ask only for what is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for mutation, but the read-only framing and sibling names convey the boundary.

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