fossa_resolve_purls

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by explicitly stating 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and explaining the queued-build side effect in concrete terms. It also clarifies that despite the read-like intent, it is 'gated like any other POST' and requires an environment variable. This fully discloses behavioral traits without contradicting any annotation.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bold warning, then a short explanatory paragraph. Every sentence carries meaningful information—there is no filler, and the critical caveat about writes is prominent.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the purpose, the write side effect, the async queuing, the result states, and the retry behavior. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke correctly and set expectations, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter (purls) has zero schema description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying 'package URLs' and the 'up to 100' limit. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (array of strings). It stops short of detailing PURL format or URL encoding, but for a single simple parameter it is sufficient.

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 and unambiguous statement: 'Resolve up to 100 package URLs to the FOSSA components they identify and return the licensing FOSSA holds for each.' This names the exact verb, resource, and output. It is distinct from sibling tools like fossa_list_dependencies or fossa_get_dependency, which do not focus on resolving purls to licensing.

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 explains when the tool causes side effects ('a PURL FOSSA has not analyzed yet is queued for an asynchronous build') and advises calling again later for queued results, which is clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the unique purpose makes the 'when to use' implicit and unambiguous.

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