generate_sbom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the SBOM lists packages and dependencies, and includes a timeout parameter hinting at potential network delays. However, it does not disclose requirements like Docker daemon access or behavior on non-existent images, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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 is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the action and formats, the second explains what the SBOM contains. No superfluous information; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It mentions output format and return behavior (if output omitted, returns in response). However, it does not specify the precise response format (e.g., JSON string matching the chosen SBOM format) or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more explicit about the return structure.

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 is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only stating the formats (CycloneDX, SPDX) and the general output content. For a high-coverage schema, the baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 explicitly states the tool generates an SBOM for a Docker image in CycloneDX or SPDX format. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_image (vulnerability scanning) and scan_sbom (analyzing existing SBOMs) by focusing on SBOM generation.

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 (generate SBOM for Docker image) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_image or scan_sbom. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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