security_audit_sbom_license_policy

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Discloses 500 KB SBOM limit, 1-hour cache per package, no glob patterns (exact SPDX IDs only), unlisted licenses default to WARN, and default policy. Contradiction-free.

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?

Single dense paragraph, well-structured: purpose, parameter details, defaults, output summary, sibling comparison, source/cache info, feedback fallback. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of output schema (not shown), description covers input constraints, defaults, caching, source, and error handling via report_feedback. No gaps for a tool of this complexity without annotations.

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 0%, but description compensates fully. Explains sbom as required JSON string with format and 500 KB max; policy as optional dict with block/warn/allow arrays, default behavior, and constraint of exact SPDX IDs. Adds meaning beyond schema type info.

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 audits a CycloneDX or SPDX SBOM against an SPDX license policy and returns a PASS/WARN/BLOCK verdict. It specifies input formats, output components, and distinguishes from sibling tool security_audit_sbom_vulnerabilities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (license policy auditing) and when not (for CVE, use the vulnerabilities sibling). Provides default policy details and includes a fallback to report_feedback if the response is inadequate. Comprehensive usage context.

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