sbom_export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions generating reports and optionally enriching with vulnerabilities, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation overwrites), permissions needed, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavioral transparency is limited.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a relevant use case. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality but omits details like behavior when both sbom_path and directory_path are provided, error handling, or the exact nature of the vulnerability enrichment. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'audit report', 'compliance') but does not delve into parameter interactions or constraints. It meets the baseline for a well-described schema but adds only modest semantic value.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'audit report from SBOM data', specifying the output formats (HTML or JSON) and optional vulnerability enrichment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sbom_generate (which creates the SBOM) by focusing on report export.

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 mentions suitability for 'PCI-DSS and compliance audits', giving a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, such as using sbom_generate if the SBOM doesn't exist or sbom_scan_vulnerabilities for standalone scanning.

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