hound_advisories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get full details') and lists the returned fields, but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a safe read-only operation, which are gaps for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose and a second sentence detailing the returned fields, all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return fields, but does not address behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with examples. The description adds value by specifying the types of IDs accepted (GHSA, CVE, or OSV ID), which provides context beyond the schema's generic description, but does not add extensive semantic details.

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 with a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('security advisory by ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns detailed information like title, severity, affected versions, fix versions, and references, unlike broader tools like 'hound_vulns' or 'hound_audit'.

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 implies usage by specifying it's for getting details by ID (GHSA, CVE, or OSV ID), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hound_vulns' for vulnerabilities or 'hound_license_check' for licenses, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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