hound_compare

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses the comparison metrics and that a recommendation is returned, but omits details on error handling (e.g., missing packages), data freshness, or authentication needs. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the action and result. Every word is informative.

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 output schema, the description states 'Returns a recommendation' but lacks details on response format, ordering, or handling of incomplete data. Otherwise covers input (two packages, optional ecosystem) adequately for a comparison tool.

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% and parameter descriptions exist ('First package name', etc.). The tool description does not add semantic meaning beyond re-iterating 'Side-by-side comparison' and 'two packages'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Side-by-side comparison') and resource ('two packages'), listing exact metrics (vulnerabilities, OpenSSF Scorecard, GitHub stars, release recency, license). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hound_inspect (single package) and hound_advisories (vulnerability focus).

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 use for comparing two packages across specified criteria, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., hound_inspect for single package). The context of sibling tools partially compensates.

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