sbom_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it discovers direct and transitive dependencies from lock files/manifests, describes output formats for verbosity levels, but does not specify behavior when lock files are missing or whether the tool is read-only.

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, each earning its place: purpose/scope, ecosystem list, verbosity guidance. Front-loaded with key action and resource.

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?

Covers core aspects: purpose, supported ecosystems, verbosity output, and parameter semantics. Lacks handling of missing lock files or error scenarios, but no output schema exists, so description compensates reasonably.

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 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond schema by explaining verbosity levels in detail ('counts', 'component list', 'complete CycloneDX JSON') and specifying output_path's default behavior (no write).

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 v1.5 SBOM for a project, lists supported ecosystems (Node.js, Python, Go, Rust, Ruby, Java), and distinguishes from siblings like sbom_scan_vulnerabilities or sbom_diff by focusing on generation rather than analysis.

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 guidance on verbosity levels but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It implies usage for generating SBOMs but lacks exclusion criteria.

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