generate_sbom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file generation), rate limits, or output handling. For a tool that likely creates files or reports, this is insufficient, though it doesn't contradict any 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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding format details in the second. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying output location). Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity (generating an SBOM likely involves file I/O and format specifics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output is (e.g., file path, JSON data), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with potential side effects, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('path' and 'format') with defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning format options (CycloneDX, SPDX), which aligns with the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Generate a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for the project.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('SBOM'), and mentions supported formats (CycloneDX, SPDX). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_dependencies' or 'detect_project', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after scanning dependencies), or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'scan_dependencies' and 'detect_project', there's a clear gap in distinguishing use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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