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 that the tool returns a recommendation and lists the comparison fields, which is helpful. It does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a read-only comparison tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality and output. It tells the agent what to expect (comparison attributes and a recommendation), making it complete for its scope.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds context about comparison but does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Side-by-side comparison of two packages' and lists the specific attributes compared. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely focus on single-package analysis (e.g., hound_vulns, hound_inspect). The verb 'compare' and resource 'packages' are precise.

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 for comparing two packages across multiple dimensions, guiding when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, but the context of comparison is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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