fossa_package_observability

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: count is capped at 50, package_locator is a partial match, and the index cache timing is disclosed. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary parameter nuances without fluff. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers the essential context: read-only nature, section-specific argument behavior, and search semantics. With 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It leaves no significant gaps.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: section (enum values and defaults), package_locator (partial match, only in locators section), and count (only in locators, capped at 50). It also clarifies which sections require no arguments. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 the package index's own metadata' and then details the exact outputs (total package count, cache time, package managers, locator search). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_list_packages or fossa_export_package_index by focusing on the index's own metadata rather than package data.

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 parameter-scoping guidance ('summary' and 'package_managers' take no arguments; package_locator and count apply only to 'locators'), which helps with usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as fossa_list_packages or fossa_export_package_index. The guidance is implied but not explicit about tool selection.

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