scout_sbom

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: Xlucidity truncation behavior ('captured stdout is subject to MAX_CLI_OUTPUT_BYTES and may be truncated for big images'), error semantics ('Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (a missing scout plugin still raises)'), and instructions to inspect `raw.stderr`. These are precisely the non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent needs to know, with no contradiction to the 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 front-loads the purpose effectively and contains no fluff; every sentence earns its place. However, the middle paragraph is dense, cramming the truncation warning, the host fallback, and the exit-code behavior into a single run-on block that could be better structured with bullets for scanability.

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 the absence of an output schema and the 0% schema coverage, the description meaningfully covers all gaps: it documents the return dict, edge cases around truncation and exit codes, sibling distinctions, and all parameter semantics. It's complete even without explicitly explaining return values for a read-only tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters. It expands all four enum values of `format` with their meanings, clarifies the `image` parameter as a reference, and explicitly documents the return structure including when `result` is a parsed dict vs raw text. This exceeds what's in the 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 opening line, 'Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for an image,' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. The description then goes further by distinguishing it from its sibling: 'Package inventory only — `scout_cves` adds vulnerability matching on top.' This explicit scope boundary and sibling differentiation is exactly what a score of 5 requires.

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 defines when to use the tool ('Package inventory only') and points to the alternative (`scout_cves`) for vulnerability matching. It even provides a workaround for large SBOMs with a specific command suggestion ('run `docker scout sbom -o file.json …` on the host'), giving clear practical guidance beyond basic invocation.

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