hound_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing comparison metrics and stating it returns a recommendation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or error handling. It adds some context but is incomplete 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (comparison) and key features (metrics listed). Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and output type (recommendation), but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format. For a comparison tool with rich functionality, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (package_a, package_b, ecosystem). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how package names are formatted or the implications of ecosystem choice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs a 'side-by-side comparison of two packages' across specific dimensions (vulnerabilities, OpenSSF Scorecard, etc.) and 'returns a recommendation.' It uses specific verbs ('compare,' 'returns') and resources ('packages'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like hound_vulns (vulnerabilities only) or hound_license_check (license only).

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 when comparing two packages across multiple metrics for a recommendation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hound_vulns (for vulnerabilities only) or hound_inspect (for single-package analysis). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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