github_dependency_graph_export_sbom

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It omits key behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, or what response to expect. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, very concise. However, conciseness comes at the expense of helpfulness; the description is efficient but fails to include necessary details. It earns points for being front-loaded and direct.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not explain the SBOM format, return type, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple export tool, more context is needed for an agent to use it reliably.

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 input schema has 2 parameters ('owner', 'repo') with descriptions that are just the parameter names. The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters, such as clarifying that 'owner' is a username or organization. Since the schema descriptions are trivial, the description's silence on parameters reduces its usefulness.

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 ('Export a software bill of materials') and the resource ('for a repository'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'github_dependency_graph_create_repository_snapshot' or 'github_dependency_graph_diff_range', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, and fails to mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no help with decision-making.

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