fossa_search_cves

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds value beyond annotations by stating a prerequisite: 'Requires the organization's security features to be on' and clarifying the open-world behavior (catalog lookup not tied to organization). No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by scope clarification, an alternative tool, and a prerequisite. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With only one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and a prerequisite. No gaps remain for the given 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 schema has only a 'query' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the query can be 'by identifier or text', giving an example CVE-2021-44228, which tells the agent what values are acceptable. This meaningfully adds beyond the raw 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 clearly states the action: 'Search FOSSA's CVE catalog by identifier or text and return the matching CVEs with their descriptions.' It specifies the resource (FOSSA's CVE catalog) and the verb (search), and distinguishes itself from findings by clarifying it is a catalog lookup, not organization-specific. This separates it from siblings like fossa_list_issues.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it says to use fossa_list_issues with category="vulnerability" to find affected projects, contrasting the catalog lookup use case with the finding/affected use case. It also gives an example of when to use this tool (to answer "what is CVE-2021-44228" regardless of org impact).

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