SBOM 점검 (최소 요소·비교·VEX)

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the input SBOM is never modified, format is auto-detected, OSV lookups occur only when offline=false (consistent with openWorldHint=true), and vex=true writes a CycloneDX VEX draft to a stated default path while preserving human-authored judgments. The write path explains the readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then organized into numbered (1)-(4) modes so each paragraph maps to a capability; almost nothing is redundant. It is nonetheless a very dense single block with heavy parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

Eight parameters, one required, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists — so the description need not specify return values, and it doesn't. It covers every mode the parameters enable plus the 2027 submission-framing rationale, leaving no operational gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it constrains vex to CycloneDX inputs only (not stated in the schema), explains what baselinePath compares (added/removed, version changes, verdict changes, new vulnerabilities), and clarifies dryRun's interaction with vex=true.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('이미 만든 CycloneDX 또는 SPDX 2.x JSON SBOM 을 제출물로서 점검합니다') and enumerates the four distinct check modes so the agent knows exactly what it does. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling generate_egovframe_sbom: this consumes an existing SBOM, it does not produce one ('SBOM 파일은 바꾸지 않음').

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for each mode: baselinePath for regression comparison, offline=false for re-querying OSV during operation, vex=true for drafting VEX, dryRun=true for preview. The 'generation-time vs now' framing tells the agent when this is the right tool. It does not, however, name the alternative sibling (generate_egovframe_sbom) explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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