depguard_sbom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavior: reads specific files, enumerates components, runs auditProject under the hood for VEX, and notes that includeVex is slower. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, method, usage guidance. No filler. Front-loaded with action verb. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It mentions the SBOM standard, compliance reasons, and VEX option. Lacks details on return format, but the standard format is implied.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for includeVex (explains it's slower, runs auditProject) but does not elaborate on targetLicense or includeDevDependencies beyond schema descriptions.

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 generates a CycloneDX 1.6 SBOM for npm projects, specifying inputs (package.json + lock file), content (direct/transitive components, PURLs, hashes), and clearly distinguishes from sibling audit/guard tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks for an SBOM, a compliance report, or to comply with EU CRA / US EO 14028 requirements.' It also mentions when to set includeVex but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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