generate_sbom

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

The description discloses supported package managers, output formats, and license compliance warnings. It also outlines the return structure. Annotations already indicate idempotency; the description adds practical behavioral details 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 concise: 4 sentences with front-loaded purpose, supported managers, features, and use case. No redundant information.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers supported package managers, output formats, license warnings, and return structure. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and descriptions for each parameter are provided in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics; it focuses on output format and features. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) from package manifests and lockfiles' and lists supported package managers and output formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are primarily analysis or query 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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for supply chain audits or compliance reports.' It does not mention when not to use, but given the sibling list, no alternative exists for SBOM generation, so context is clear.

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