hound_inspect

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 this is a read operation ('Get') and returns multiple data types in one call, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific details, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of returning multiple data types and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It lists the data returned, which helps, but does not explain the structure or format of the response, potential limitations, or how to handle errors, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 (name, version, ecosystem) with descriptions and enum values. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get a comprehensive profile') and resource ('package version'), listing the exact data returned (licenses, vulnerabilities, OpenSSF scorecard, GitHub stats, dependency count). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'all in one call,' suggesting this tool consolidates functionality that might be split across other tools like hound_vulns or hound_license_check.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing a comprehensive profile of a package version. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as using hound_vulns for just vulnerabilities or hound_license_check for just licenses.

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