fossa_render_revision_attribution

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

The description discloses that PDF is not offered, output is capped at FOSSA_REPORT_MAX_CHARS, and the 'full' variant enables all report options server-side. These details provide meaningful operational context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action followed by essential caveats. Every sentence contributes substantive value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, variant semantics, output format limitation, output cap, and an alternative tool. Given the complexity of 18 parameters, it does not enumerate every boolean option, but the schema provides clear titles and defaults, making this 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 clarifies the semantics of the 'variant' parameter, explaining that 'full' accepts no options here and 'preview' renders inline. However, with 18 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only compensates for a small fraction; the remaining 17 parameters rely on their self-explanatory title/default values.

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 clearly states the tool's function: generate a revision's attribution report and return the rendered document. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling fossa_get_attribution_report by noting that tool is for plain file download, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly names fossa_get_attribution_report as an alternative for plain file download, and explains the three variant behaviors (stream, preview, full). This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, though it does not mention other related sibling tools like fossa_get_revision_attribution_json.

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