Get Sbom Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds real context beyond that: counts span all architectures while the package list is architecture-filtered and filterable. It says nothing about result size, truncation, or the limit default, though the output schema carries those details.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payoff. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and the schema fully covers the inputs. It is complete enough to call correctly, falling short only on sibling routing against get_release_sbom_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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema with defaults, patterns, and enum values. The description only gestures at 'filterable' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a tag's SBOM') and even previews the payload shape (counts per arch, filterable package list). The word 'tag's' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_release_sbom_tool, but that routing is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With get_release_sbom_tool in the sibling list, an explicit statement that this covers image tags rather than releases would have resolved the obvious ambiguity; nothing here does that.

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