export_sbom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral details: CycloneDX vs SPDX output, dependency on Syft for full dependency lists, and derivation from findings otherwise. However, it doesn't state if the tool is read-only or modifies state, nor any authentication needs.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the following sentences add essential details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 tool complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers key behaviors: output formats, Syft dependency, and fallback behavior. It omits potential side effects (e.g., time to run all scanners) but is largely complete. The output schema compensates for missing return value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the format parameter's behavior difference (CycloneDX with/without Syft). This goes beyond the schema's brief 'cyclonedx or spdx' and provides meaningful context for agent decisions.

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 tool exports an SBOM/vulnerability report after running all scanners. It specifies the resource (SBOM) and action (export), and distinguishes between CycloneDX and SPDX modes. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like 'export_sarif' or 'compliance_report'.

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 implies usage when an SBOM is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'export_sarif', 'compliance_report'). It doesn't mention prerequisites like scanner installation or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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